Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Accident Cases, Hospitals (Information)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, following a bus accident in Twickenham recently which resulted in people being taken to the West Middlesex Hospital, the names of the injured were not released to the newspapers until more than two hours had elapsed since their admission; and whether, in view of public anxiety over such accidents, he will ask all hospitals to give such information without delay.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Sevan): Full particulars were given to Press representatives within half an hour after the last casualty was admitted to hospital. Hospitals have already been asked to give particulars of accident casualties to the Press as quickly as possible.

Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not really in the interests of anybody except ambulance-chasers that this information should be published in the Press before it is given to relatives; and that in any case, it is not suitable for the hon. Member to interfere in a constituency 100 miles from his own?

Mr. Bevan: I myself think that it is the view of everyone that it would be desirable for relatives to hear of the accident first of all from the hospital, and not read about it first of all in the Press.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give the fullest possible publicity to the reply which he has given today, in view of the high regard in which the administration of this hospital is held in my constituency and in adjacent constituencies?

Mr. Bevan: I have no reason at all to suppose that the hospital has been at fault in any particular. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has said, we have every admiration for its administration.

Mr. Janner: While not making any reflection upon the hospital itself, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is highly essential that in cases where relatives are living some distance from the accident and are not aware of the accident, they should have the information as soon as possible?

Mr. Bevan: That is an entirely different issue. The question here is whether the hospital had provided the Press with a report as reasonably early as possible. The answer is "Yes." The Press report, I think, was erroneous in the matter. In any case, I would much prefer them to be a little delayed in that, and let the relatives know first.

Diphtheria Cases, Norfolk

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health how many cases of diphtheria were reported among children up to 16 years of age in the County of Norfolk during 1948; and how many of such children had been immunised against the disease; how many children up to 16 years of age in the same county died of diphtheria during 1948; and how many of such children had been immunised.

Mr. Bevan: Figures are available only for children up to the age of 15. According to returns from local authorities, four children were reported during 1948 as having diphtheria; none of them had been immunised, and no children died from the disease.

Spectacles

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that spectacles were ordered last April for the five-year old son of Mr. A. R. Wright, of 7, Old Court Hall, Godmanchester, Huntingdon; that the case is an urgent


one; that the boy is still without his spectacles; and when he may expect to receive them.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. Inquiries made by my Department have failed to identify this case. While I cannot undertake to investigate every individual case, if the hon. Member will send me details about which I have written to him I will have further inquiries made.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this a National Health Service case? I gave him as many particulars as I could and, bearing in mind that the child is severely handicapped in his education, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to see that the child gets spectacles if I let him have the fullest information?

Mr. Bevan: I must have enough particulars to enable me to identify the case.

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the General Optical Company, Clerkenwell Road, has still not delivered spectacle lenses ordered by the National Health Service last January and February; and if he will take steps to see that no more orders are placed with this firm until it has greatly reduced the delay.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that most prescription manufacturers have heavy arrears of orders for spectacles but I have no power to direct opticians to withhold orders from particular firms.

Mr. Haire: Has this firm not proved its total inefficiency by accepting far more orders than it could cope with? As a result, many unfortunate people have had to wait for nine months, including among them my own mother-in-law.

Mr. Bevan: I am sure the whole House sympathises with my hon. Friend in his domestic infelicity. We are trying to get these cases sorted out so as to prevent delays in any particular instance.

Mr. Bramall: Could my right hon. Friend say what progress is being made in the discussions with the trade which he said were taking place in this connection when he replied to a Question which I asked?

Mr. Bevan: Some progress is being made, but hon. Members will appreciate that this is an extremely complex matter. We are dealing with many thousands of private opticians who have relations of their own with firms and it is not an easy matter to iron out.

Sir David Robertson: asked the Minister of Health the reason for the continued delay in supplying spectacles to Fiona and Morag Duncan, schoolchildren in Streatham, of whom particulars have been supplied to him, whose health is suffering because they are compelled to use spectacles which are no longer suitable.

Mr. Bevan: Delay in supply is due to heavy demand, and I cannot undertake to investigate every individual case. I understand, however, that in this case the opticians have now promised to get the glasses through as quickly as possible.

Sir D. Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these children have been waiting nearly a year for their spectacles and does he also realise, from correspondence I have passed to him, that the children are ill? Does he further realise that his Parliamentary Secretary told me two-and-a-half months ago that all the parents had to do was to keep in touch with the optician? They have done that ever since and the situation really is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Bevan: I think the priority system for spectacles can be operated only by the optician. There is no way at all of doing it through central machinery. I have urged the opticians to give first consideration to sick people and schoolchildren.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Health what is now the present average length of time between the order and delivery of a pair of spectacles.

Mr. Bevan: The position is approximately the same as on 20th October last, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject on that date.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the right hon. Gentleman fully realise the seriousness of this position, that there are, for instance, considerable numbers of schoolchildren, normally intelligent children who attend school every day, who are yet unable to


read or write because they have no spectacles, and whose whole future is thus seriously prejudiced? When shall we have some improvement in the length of time?

Mr. Bevan: I have already informed the House that an improvement is already taking place, and the supply now is very much in excess of demand.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is it the fact that the delay is due to the inadequate import of lenses from abroad? Is that the bottleneck?

Mr. Bevan: No. We have imported a large number of lenses from abroad to deal with arrears, and before very long our own production will be adequate.

Kingston Victoria Hospital

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now considered the representations made to him in respect of the Regional Hospital Board's proposal to use for other purposes the Kingston Victoria Hospital; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Bevan: I am awaiting further information from the Regional Hospital Board.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for repairs to deaf-aids to be carried out locally in order to prevent delay.

Mr. Bevan: Minor repairs are carried out locally at the distribution centres. Patients whose aids have to be sent away for major repairs are provided with replacements. To carry out such repairs locally might well cause rather than prevent delay.

Prescriptions

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Health if he has made an estimate of the extent to which the proposed 1s. tax on National Health prescriptions will reduce the demand on doctors or, alternatively, increase the demand on chemists.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. There is evidence of unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists which the proposed charge is intended to reduce, but I am unable to estimate the exact extent to which this is likelv to take place. There is no

reason why the proposed charge should increase the demand on chemists.

Sir T. Moore: In any case, in view of the widespread opposition to this method of penalising the poor, would not the Minister consider abolishing this discriminating charge altogether?

Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. and gallant Member should await the regulation before he makes wild statements of that sort.

Sir T. Moore: They are not wild.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health what is the average cost of prescribing a medicine in hospital; how does this compare with similar medicines provided by a chemist; and whether he can account for the difference.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Piratin: Would the Minister propose to find an opportunity of ascertaining this information? If he does so, he will find that the average cost of a prescription in a hospital is 9d., whereas in a shop it is 3s. Could he not find an opportunity for a new regulation to bring the shop price down to the hospital price?

Mr. Bevan: I do not know how the hon. Member arrives at that figure. If he will tell me of his arithmetic on which he bases his figure I shall be extremely interested.

Psychotic Children (Accommodation)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that owing to lack of suitable accommodation a number of psychotic children are housed in the same wards as adult patients in mental hospitals within the South-West Hospital Region; and if, in his plans for dealing with this problem, he will have due regard for the desirability of providing the necessary accommodation on a regional basis.

Mr. Bevan: The South-Western Regional Hospital Board have recently made a careful inquiry into the question of accommodation for child psychotics in their region, and have been in consultation with my officers about it. I am informed that there are now only three


psychotic children in mental hospitals in the region, and efforts are being made to remove them to other accommodation. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes."

Mr. Collins: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend proposes to provide separate accommodation for psychotic children, and will that also cover the possibility of providing educational facilities?

Mr. Bevan: I am not able to reply offhand to the second part of the supplementary question, but certainly we do not consider it desirable to have these children in mental homes for adults.

Home Accidents

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health how many accidents through burns and scalds, occurring in the home, have been treated in hospitals during each of the last three years; and how many of these accidents have been suffered by children.

Mr. Bėvan: I regret that the information is not at present available.

Hospital Staffs (Trade Unions)

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the correspondence forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Colchester indicating the refusal of a hospital management committee to grant special leave without pay to a member of the staff to attend a training course for trade union officers; and whether, in view of the importance of building up a staff consultative machine in the hospital service, he will circularise all committees advising them to look sympathetically at such applications.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir, and I am at present considering whether any more general advice to hospital management committees would be justified.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister tell the House whether any guidance has been given to hospital boards in connection with facilitating trade union recruitment of the nurses and staffs?

Mr. Bevan: There is no need for me to give general guidance in this matter at

all. All the arrangements for the recruiting of trade union membership are well known to the unions concerned.

Mr. Smith: As hospital managements apparently do not recognise the desirability of setting up consultative machinery, and the necessity for this to be done by suitable people, who should be given an opportunity of having proper training for it, does my right hon. Friend really not think that some kind of indication from him is desirable on that point?

Mr. Bevan: As I said in my first answer, I am proposing to make inquiries to find out whether some general guidance ought to be given.

Hospital Operating Theatres (Hours of Use)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health by whom, and in what hospital or hospitals, were orders issued limiting the use of operating theatres to the hours from 9 a.m. to 5.30 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health in what hospital or hospitals the use of the operating theatre is restricted to the hours 9 a.m. to 5.30 p.m.; by whom; and why.

Mr. Bevan: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friends.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that Lord Horder has not yet had the courtesy or the courage to substantiate the allegation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—which, in the absence of factual supporting evidence, will be regarded as irresponsible and, possibly, even malicious?

Mr. Bevan: As far as I can find out—and I have made inquiries—we have received no information whatsoever from Lord Horder either before or since he made his statement.

Mr. Speaker: That supplementary question we have just heard was an attack upon a Member of another place, and it should not have been made. It referred to a statement made in the Press, and there was no need in the question to mention any name at all.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Bevan: On that point of Order. The statement was made by a Member of another place but not in his capacity as a Member of another House. Do I understand that any Member of the other House can make any statement he likes in any other capacity and claim immunity?

Mr. Speaker: It was a very offensive supplementary question imputing malice, and it is not in Order for Questions to be offensive.

Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of Order. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, also, that the original statement complained of was exceedingly offensive.

Mr. Swingler: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Law Officers of the Crown to find out whether hospital administrators as a group can be protected in any way from unsubstantiated charges against unspecified hospitals?

Mr. Bevan: The only defence and protection which administrators have—which, indeed, the country has—is in Questions and answers in the House of Commons and the publicity which is given to them.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Would not the Minister think it right to circulate the information in HANSARD rather than to convey it to the two hon. Members concerned?

Mr. Bevan: If there is a Question put on the Order Paper I will certainly give a reply in the House.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is it so unreasonable that what may be termed routine operations should be confined to these hours, provided that emergency operations can take place at any hour?

Mr. Bevan: There are many inquiries to make and there are thousands of hospitals. In the absence of any particular information I have now to circularise all the hospital management committees. Certainly it is perfectly reasonable for operating theatres to be closed during certain hours if they are always available for emergency operations, but the implication here is a reflection upon the National Health Service.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Was not the original answer a perfectly proper one,

that the right hon. Gentleman was making inquiries, and is it not premature, until he has made those inquiries, to say whether this is substantiated or not?

Mr. Bevan: A responsible person, if he thought that this was being done and it was wrong, would have written to the Minister and given him the name of the hospital in order that he might make inquiries. Instead of that, much anxiety and pain and alarm have been unnecessarily given to many hundreds of thousands of people.

Penicillin

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of of Health what instructions have been issued by his Department or by any regional hospitals board to any hospital to reduce the use of penicillin on the ground of expense; and if he will give an assurance that the use of drugs under the National Health Service lies entirely within the discretion of doctors.

Mr. Bevan: No such instruction has been issued, either by me or by any regional hospital board, and the matter is one entirely at the discretion of the doctor.

Mr. Swingler: Will my right hon. Friend now request, very courteously, a Member of another place either to substantiate or to have the common decency to withdraw his allegation?

Mr. Bevan: I do not propose to enter into any communication with the noble Lord in this matter. If he will send me the precise information upon which he bases his very serious allegation I will have inquiries made. In the absence of this information I can only ask the country to take no notice of such irresponsible statements.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that some people are allergic to penicillin, and that the administration of it does them definite harm; and are any steps being taken to see that doctors do not administer it when the patients tells them that he is allergic to it?

Mr. Bevan: This is entirely a clinical matter with which I not propose to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Private Building

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider allowing a limited number of houses to be built by private enterprise specifically for letting to tenants.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to Circular 102/49 regarding the review of the housing programme, of which I enclose a copy. I hope to be able to give further instructions in the near future and will bear in mind the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that the majority of the houses that are now being built are built by private enterprise for local authorities? Will my right hon. Friend urge upon local authorities the desirability of establishing public works departments of their own in order to build houses by direct labour?

Mr. Bevan: That is another issue entirely. This is a question whether it would not be desirable in some instances that private persons should have licences to build houses to let. I am satisfied that there are some instances where that would be a general advantage.

Sir Waldron Smithers: With reference to the recent economy measures taken by the Government, will the Minister give an assurance that the stopping of private building was not a sop in relation to the shilling on a prescription?

Waiting Lists

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health if he has received the information concerning housing waiting lists from local authorities for which he asked in his Circular 171/48, and which should have been returned to his Department by 31st March; and when he will make a report of the information he has received.

Mr. Bevan: Returns have now been received from all but a few local authorities, but I am unable at present to add to the reply I gave on 24th October.

Mr. Piratin: Does the Minister therefore say that he has not received all the replies which were due some seven months ago? Was not the purpose of collating this information in order to

know exactly what kind of housing programme was necessary?

Mr. Bevan: The purpose is to enable local authorities to screen housing lists, to have them sent to the central authority and then have them analysed for redundancy and various other particulars in order to give us, as far as possible, an approximate estimate of the housing needs.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: From his study of those replies which have already been received could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the number of people waiting for houses is increasing or decreasing?

Mr. Bevan: I should say they are on the decrease, not on the increase, but until all the returns are in I cannot tell what the figures are.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Does not the Minister agree that the lists will be added to considerably by the persons who are disappointed through not getting a licence to have a house built by private enterprise? Will not that be a further addition to the list?

Mr. Bevan: I do not agree at all. If a person has a need ahead of someone else then he should receive his requirements from the local authority's scheme and not merely by virtue of the fact that he has the money to buy a house.

Building Licences

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Health on what grounds his Leeds Housing Office instructed the Haltem Price Housing Authority to revoke a building licence granted to Mr. E. L. Frost, of Kirkella.

Mr. Bevan: My regional office raised certain questions about this but did not instruct the local authority to revoke the licence, and indeed had no power to do so. The local authority decided to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to revoke the licence, but I understand that on reconsideration of the position my right hon. Friend is advising the local authority to issue a further licence.

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the current method of granting building licences


results in the maximum price being revealed to the builder, and consequently in housing costs being inflated; and if he will adopted an alternative method.

Mr. Bevan: The licence contains no information unknown to the builder which would result in inflated building costs. The latter part of the Question does not, therefore arise.

Mr. Odey: Would the Minister bear in mind in this connection that the original estimate was subsequently reduced by £250? Is it not clear, therefore, that this information is available to the builder and should be withheld in the view of the importance of obtaining reduced prices for building?

Mr. Bevan: There is statutory obligation to disclose it which I have no power to waive.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister give some guidance to licensing authorities whether he is prepared to agree that housing costs ought to be raised now, as a result of devaluation, because I have heard of one instance where the figure was raised by £250 and that was the reason given?

Mr. Bevan: I do not know whether the hon. Member refers to housing costs or to the prices of second-hand houses.

Mr. Lipson: New houses.

Mr. Bevan: With regard to new houses, there is no evidence at the moment of any rise in prices whatsoever and no one has the right to anticipate the effect of devaluation because no one can yet estimate it exactly.

Templecombe

Mr. David Jones: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, with the exception of 10 houses for agricultural workers, no houses have been built in the village of Templecombe since the war; and whether he will review the allocation of houses which may be built by the Wincanton Rural District Council, in view of the need for housing accommodation in the village for all sections of the population.

Mr. Bevan: I am informed that 26 houses have been built in this village since the war. The council's allocation will be reviewed from time to time, but

I do not consider that an increase is called for at present. It is for the council to settle the distribution of their allocations among the various parishes.

Birmingham

Sir Patrick Harmon: asked the Minister of Health if he will order an inquiry into the circumstances affecting housing conditions in Birmingham, where the rate of housing has been only 50 per cent. of the average for the whole country; if he will consult with the Minister of Labour with a view to increasing the supply of manpower for the construction of houses to meet the needs of over 50,000 applicants now on the register of the estates committee of the city; and if this problem will engage his urgent attention.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. I am informed that detailed proposals for improving housing progress in Birmingham have recently been adopted by the Corporation, including measures aimed at augmenting the manpower on house building. Every possible assistance is being given by my regional officers and by the Ministry of Labour.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the grievous situation of housing in Birmingham, is it not a strange fact that 1.95 houses per thousand are being built there against 3.75 in the country as a whole? Surely something can be done to improve the rate?

Mr. Bevan: There is so much private work going on in that area that it is very difficult for the Corporation to keep up its manpower. We are doing our best by planning to try to make a proper distribution between the private and public sectors, but it is not always easy, and we do not always have the most willing instruments.

Mr. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that owing to the deterioration in the housing position in Birmingham the 10 Labour Members for the city are endeavouring to have a conference with the local authority, and that so far it has been reluctant to agree to one, even though we asked for it as long ago as July? In this situation, if the Minister does not agree to an inquiry, will he meet the Members of Parliament for the city so that this whole situation can be considered?

Mr. Bevan: I am always ready to meet Members from any part of the House, but my hon. Friend would not expect me to enter into a discussion as between Members of Parliament and their local authorities.

Sir P. Hannon: Surely the Minister realises—and I am much obliged for the interest he takes in this Question—that we have 55,000 applicants in Birmingham for accommodation? Surely something can be done to arrange for such labour power as is available to engage in the building of houses?

Mr. Bevan: Birmingham has a large number of people who would like to have council houses, but it must not necessarily be assumed that every applicant for a council house is actually in need of accommodation, although we know that there are very large numbers of people who are in need of accommodation.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are well over 20,000 applicants with children, who are clearly in need—in most cases badly in need—of accommodation, and that this percentage is probably one of the highest in the country, and that the rate of construction of municipal houses is, in fact, not 50 per cent. of the rate for the country but a third of the rate for the country? Does he not think that calls for very special consideration?

Mr. Bevan: The answer to my hon. Friend is that the building industry is working to its full capacity, and the only way in which we can get more houses built is by not building something else. Then we have to consider priorities. Those priorities have been considered.

COAST EROSION, SANDGATE

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Minister of Health what steps will be taken this winter to prevent further damage and loss of private and public property at Sandgate, where the sea defences and sea wall, which could not be maintained during the war, have in places been destroyed or undermined, thus exposing a considerable portion of Sandgate to immediate danger whenever a high tide coincides with a gale.

Mr. Bevan: The local authority have already put in hand the necessary steps.

Brigadier Mackeson: In view of the very serious situation at this small place, which may soon easily become a tragedy if the work is not carried out quickly and efficiently, would the right hon. Gentleman very kindly review the whole situation once the Coast Protection Bill has become an Act?

Mr. Bevan: I will indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Control of Engagement Order

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to lay on the Table of this House the Statutory Instrument to continue the Control of Engagement Order.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I hope to do this early in December.

Holidays with Pay

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of insured workers in employment who were receiving holidays with pay in 1939 compared with 1949."

Mr. Isaacs: The estimated figures are about 40 per cent. in 1939 and about 95 per cent. in 1949.

Displaced Persons

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of displaced persons at present in this country have been unemployed for a period exceeding two months, since 1st January. 1948.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information is not available, but I am satisfied that the proportion unemployed for a period exceeding two months is very small indeed.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: If I send the right hon. Gentleman details, will he look into the cases of 30, displaced persons who have been unemployed for well over three months, although many of them are anxious to work on neighbouring farms and many local farmers are anxious to have them?

Mr. Isaacs: I should certainly like to see such information, but I had no guide in the Question that such a point was at issue. I can say that we know of 600 cases of misfits, of people who do not fit in very well, who have been unemployed for over two months. The percentage of unemployed amongst these people generally is considerably under 1 per cent

Dry-Cleaning Industry (Trainees)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the shortage of labour in the dyeing industry; and if he will consult with the industry with a view to preparing a scheme for trainees.

Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware of any particular shortage of labour in the dry-cleaning industry. It is for the industry itself to arrange for the systematic training of its young workers, and my officers are ready, if requested, to give advice on the preparation of a suitable scheme.

Mr. Haire: Has my right hon. Friend invited this industry to set up a training scheme; and does he not appreciate that until there is such a scheme many youths cannot apply for deferment of National Service, and so may be lost to the industry?

Mr. Isaacs: On the other hand, this industry has never made any complaint to me, and I cannot ask if they want a training scheme until they tell me that there is a shortage of labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Pamphlet (Distribution)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Education the distribution of the Ministry of Education pamphlet No. 16 entitled "Citizens Growing Up"; and how many copies of it have been sold to the public.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tom-linson): One thousand eight hundred copies of this pamphlet were distributed by my Department to local education authorities, the Press and selected individuals. The number of copies sold to the public or otherwise distributed by His Majesty's Stationery Office up to 19th November was 14,343.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the Minister satisfied with the distribution of this pamphlet; and is he aware that it is about the best pamphlet his Department has ever produced, and that its distribution ought to be a very great deal larger?

Mr. Tomlinson: I shall never be satisfied with the numbers. I agree that it is at least one of the best pamphlets we have ever turned out. It is also one of the most popular from the standpoint of the numbers printed. I am anxious that it should be advertised more, and we have put in hand a reprint of another 15,000.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it would be even better and more popular if more intelligent attention had been paid to the typography; and will he consult experts, and have future booklets set in more suitable and better type?

Mr. Tomlinson: We are anxious to keep these pamphlets within reach of the pocket of the individual.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend explain why we are getting so many complimentary questions from the Opposition today? Where is the catch?

Economy Measures

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Education why he cut the London County Council 1950 education expenditure from £7,758,000 to £3 million; whether similar cuts have been made in the expenditure of the local education authorities; what is the total of these cuts; and what will be the effect in providing places for the one million more children by 1952.

Mr. Tomlinson: Since the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Piratin: Meanwhile, can the Minister tell the House what will be the total amount of the different cuts applying to all local education authorities, and whether that is the amount which was referred to in the £35 million cut in building announced by the Prime Minister the other week?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, it has no relation to us.

Mr. Piratin: What is the total?

Mr. Tomlinson: The total amount is contained in the answer, which is so long that I thought it would take too much time to read it.

Mr. Piratin: It is only one figure.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Is it or is it not a fact that the L.C.C. is saved a considerable amount in building by places like Essex having to build on their estates for the school children who come to live there from all over London?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is another question, which I am sure the House would not wish me to answer now.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: In view of the correspondence in "The Times" and elsewhere, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that these figures which are being quoted as "cuts" are not cuts in building at all, but are cuts in paper estimates which were grossly inflated compared with the general national plan prior to the introduction of the general cuts?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is a point which is made clear in the long answer.

Following is the answer:

Local education authorities were told last February that the 1950 building programme would be about the same size as that for 1949. The work proposed by authorities was nearly three times as big. It had, therefore, to be reduced to bring it within the limits both of the available resources and of authorities' capacity to prepare the necessary plans and carry the work out. The reductions in individual programmes were announced to authorities last July and August.

Between January, 1947, and December, 1953, new school places in maintained schools are required to meet three main needs. The school population was increased by about 330,000 as a result of the raising of the school leaving age. Over the period, the school population is expected to increase by nearly one million as a result of the high birthrate of the years 1944–48. School places will also be required to meet the needs of children on new housing estates, but much of this provision will free places elsewhere to meet needs arising from the increased birthrate.

The total requirement over the period 1947–53 is estimated at about 1,450,000 places. Against this total requirement, it is estimated that in January, 1947, about 300,000 places were available in suitably situated existing school buildings. About 350,000 new places will have been provided by the end of 1949, 90,000 of them this year. A further 135,000 new places are expected to be provided during 1950.

Exchange Teachers Scheme (Dollar Rate)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Education when he proposes to put into effect the plans for helping teachers who are working in America under the Exchange of Teachers Scheme, in view of their financial difficulties.

Mr. Tomlinson: In order to meet the possible difficulties of these teachers an instalment of £50 of the normal Goverment grant has already been paid to each of them and a further instalment is being paid. Special payments to meet the situation caused by the change in the sterling-dollar rate will, as I told the hon. and gallant Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Major Gates) on 27th October last, be made when inquiries have been completed as to how much of their funds the teachers had already converted into dollars before revaluation took place.

BECHUANALAND (RAILWAY)

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in view of the fact that the Southern Rhodesian Government proposes to sell the sections of railways from Vryburg to Ramathlabama and from Ramathlabama to Palapye, respectively, the consent of His Majesty's Government has been asked and given for either transaction.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): No, Sir. I have no official information about the sale of any sections of the Rhodesia Railways; I have seen a Press report that the Southern Rhodesia Government is prepared to consider selling to the Union Government the section of the railway from Vryburg to Ramathlabama, which lies in Union territory. I have not seen any reports of a


proposal to sell the section in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. The question of His Majesty's Government's consent does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Parker: If the Southern Rhodesian Government desired to sell would the consent of His Majesty's Government have to be obtained?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the Southern Rhodesian Government desired to sell, it would not be a question of exercising the Union's option, which can only be effected in 1970, and no formal consent would be required. In fact, the higher authority of the Rhodesian Railways includes two persons nominated by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom—the Governor of Northern Rhodesia and the High Commissioner for the High Commission Territories. Therefore, we should have a say, though no consent would be required.

Mr. Bramall: Could we be assured that if the Union Government did purchase this section of the railway in Bechuanaland it would not be treated by His Majesty's Government in this country as a reason for any change of status in Bechuanaland?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a rather wider question.

DOLLAR EXPORTS BOARD

Mr. Collins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the interests of the dollar export drive, he will set up in his Department a Dollar Exports Board.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): No, Sir. My hon. Friend will be aware that a Dollar Exports Board has been set up as a body, independent of His Majesty's Government, representing British industry, commerce, banking and organised labour, to foster and help the accepted aim of increasing to the utmost exports to North America. The internal organisation of the Commercial Relations and Exports Department of the Board of Trade has been reshaped in such a way as to give the maximum help for this purpose both to the Dollar Exports Board and generally.

Mr. Collins: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a recent speech to the American

Chamber of Commerce the Chairman of the Dollar Export Board said, among other things, that "politics or no politics we cannot afford the welfare State "and in many quarters this statement was regarded as coming from someone in an official position. Can my hon. Friend take steps to repudiate it, and will he say if he is satisfied with the position and, if not, what other action he proposes to take?

Mr. Bottomley: The responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to see that exports are pushed to the fullest extent in the North American markets, and we have no reason to feel that that is not being done.

Mr. Haire: Was not the appointment of the Chairman the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade, and in the light of the recent speech made ought not the Chairman to be asked to resign?

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. The appointment was not made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Mikardo: Does my right hon. Friend feel that the function of the Board of Trade in maximising dollar exports is fulfilled by having as chief salesman a person who denigrates his employer?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. Friend say whether it was thought a useful method of expanding dollar sales to say to Americans that we were spending in this country on the welfare state what we could not afford?

Mr. Bottomley: I think that the Chairman of the Dollar Export Board knows the views of my right hon. Friend.

FIRES, NEWPORT (INQUIRIES)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now state the results of the investigations carried out by his officials into the cause of the two fires in Newport which destroyed two well-known and historic churches recently.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I understand from the Chief Constable of Newport, Monmouthshire, that he called in Dr. J. B. Firth, of the North-Western Forensic Science Laboratory, to assist in the police inquiries into the cause of the destruction by fire of the two churches. These inquiries are not yet completed.

Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend give me any indication when they are likely to be completed?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. It is hardly correct to describe this person as an official of my Department. He was called in by the Newport and Monmouthshire police and is acting under their instructions and advising them.

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION (NAMES)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will substitute the heading "Christian or other fore names" for the heading "Forenames" when reprinting the electoral registration form.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the offence given to a large number of persons by reason of the substitution of the word "Forenames" instead of "Christian Names" on the voting registers; and whether, in future, the words "Christian or Forenames" can be used rather than "Forenames" only.

Mr. Ede: The answer is, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Keeling: Does the Home Secretary agree that in this country the feelings and susceptibilities of Christians deserve consideration at least as much as the feelings of non-Christians; and that it was unfortunate that the heading "Forenames" was ever adopted, perhaps without his knowledge.

Mr. Ede: I think that the susceptibilities of all sections of the community should be considered in these matters. There is no doubt that "Forenames" is a correct legal description, but I am aware that some people, who would deny me, for instance, the use of Christian names, do feel very strongly about the matter, and I have arranged that in future all susceptibilities shall be met.

PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS (STATISTICS)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider publishing month by month the results of his appeal to the nation on 24th October in appropriate statistical form.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The very full monthly statistics now published concerning production, productivity and exports show the progress which the country has made and will continue to make. It is not feasible to single out and give statistical form to the particular results which may follow from my addresses to the nation.

Sir T. Moore: Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be a considerable encouragement to those who are responding to this appeal, to have a periodical acknowledgment of their success, especially as the right hon. Gentleman was able to give at the Mansion House dinner some particular examples?

The Prime Minister: I gave some examples, but it was not necessary or indeed meant to include everybody. I thought that to give some examples would encourage others. I am glad to say that there are many other examples coming forward, but I do not think that these would be susceptible to statistical form.

INFORMERS (PAYMENT)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister in which Departments of His Majesty's Government it is the practice to pay informers for reporting infringements of the law or official regulations by members of the public.

The Prime Minister: The General Post Office, the Inland Revenue Department, the Customs and Excise Department and the Ministry of Food. Small occasional rewards have also been paid by the Board of Trade, and possibly by other Departments.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if these Departments pay children to inform against their parents, or will they merely encourage them to inform without payment, as was done in Nazi Germany?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The particular offences in respect of which awards have been given are very grave offences against the whole community. For instance, the Post Office gave a reward in a matter in which there was wholesale forging going on of national saving stamps. There are also dangerous conspiracies in regard to the export of sterling and so forth, and steps have been taken—and I think rightly taken—to protect the country. No one likes the informer business, but it has been found necessary over a long series of years by successive Governments to give rewards in certain exceptional cases. The amounts given are very small.

Mr. Clement Davies: While recognising that this has been of long standing, does not the Prime Minister think that it is the duty of every citizen to bring to the attention of the authorities any breach of the law, and should not this be left in that form rather than to make a money payment to encourage spying?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that it is the duty of the citizen. Rewards are never held out as an inducement, but they are given as awards in certain cases.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. Friend say of the five Departments he has listed which began this practice under the present Government, which under a Conservative Government and which under a Liberal Government?

The Prime Minister: So far as I can see the Treasury started under a Whig-Tory Government a couple of hundred years ago. I think that the Post Office started somewhere in the early 1920s, and I suppose that the Ministry of Food, being recently established, started at a more recent date.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the Prime Minister aware that this whole matter is exceedingly repugnant to all citizens, and will he undertake to see that it is kept within practical bounds? Will he inform the House who decides on the scale of rewards and on what Vote it is carried?

The Prime Minister: They are kept within very strict limits. I can say, for instance, that the total amount given from 1916 to 1938 on Inland Revenue matters was some £11,000, and in the last 10 years it was about £1,100. It is kept

under very close review, and careful instructions are given to all officers on appointment that there should be no holding out of rewards whatever. I think that hon. Members must recognise that there are very grave crimes which do great damage to the country, and it is necessary that the community should be protected.

Lieut-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: Will the Prime Minister at least assure the House that these monetary rewards will be kept to a minimum and will be subject to Income Tax?

The Prime Minister: Obviously that depends on the income of the recipient, and I naturally cannot say whether they will come under Income Tax or not, but I think that I have three times already said that they are kept to the minimum.

Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this practice is no more reprehensible than the practice of snooping when the means test was in operation?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Afforestation (Quantock Hills)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now make a statement about the plans of the Forestry Commission with regard to the proposed extension of afforestation of the Quantocks.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I cannot yet add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member of 18th October.

Mr. Bartlett: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the pitiful anxiety of people in that area, and can he give any indication when he will be able to give a decision?

Mr. Williams: Unfortunately, no, because the claims to common rights for this land which the local inhabitants have made are still being investigated, and these investigations have to go back deep into history.

Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend say at this stage whether this will include the planting of conifers only or of other trees in a mixed plantation?

Mr. Williams: No detailed afforestation plans are being made in this case.

Supervision Order (Objections)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will, in future, ensure that the person appointed by him to hear the objections of an owner or occupier threatened with a supervision order shall not be the agricultural executive committee which proposes to make the order.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. The opportunity to make representations is given so that the county agricultural executive committee may hear, and take into account, the views of the person concerned before reaching a final decision.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it really means the agricultural executive committee is both prosecutor and judge? Although these committees undoubtedly try to act in as just a manner as possible, does it not often leave the impression that justice is not done? Will he look into the matter again to see whether some other administrative arrangements can be made in cases of this kind?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir, because the words of the Act are very definite. As my hon. Friend must be aware, the representations are not appeals against a supervision order which has been made, but the representations are made to the agricultural executive committee, perhaps on the recommendation of its district committee for a supervision order, to determine whether or not that order ought to be applied. It is a perfectly fair scheme which farmers generally accept and appreciate.

Poultry Stock Improvement Plan

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now announce the date from which the Poultry Stock Improvement Plan will be re-opened to new entrants.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir, but I hope to be able to make an announcement at or about the end of the year.

County Executive Committees (Accounts)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to ensure that the accounts of the

county committees show the full amount of expenditure and income which is properly attributable to each service and the amount of Ministry of Works expenditure on hostels which is attributable to the gang labour service.

Mr. T. Williams: The intention is that the trading accounts of county committees for 1948–49 and succeeding years shall include all expenditure and income properly attributable to each service. As regards hostels, it is proposed, on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, to show in the Appropriation Account the income and expenditure in respect of hostels arising on the Ministry's Vote and on the Votes of other Departments.

Sir W. Smithers: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, of which this forms part, is a terrible indictment of his Department and of State control as a whole?

Mr. Williams: I do not agree to anything of the kind.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: When is it proposed to consider publishing the accounts of the agricultural executive committees?

Mr. Williams: When they have been submitted to the appropriate select committee.

Mr. Turton: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to change the form of the accounts, as recommended by the Select Committee on Estimates?

Mr. Williams: I stated, in regard to hostels, that it is proposed, on the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, to show in the Appropriation Account the income and expenditure arising on the Ministry's Vote and the Votes of other Departments.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in order that Parliament may form an accurate view of the way in which some £20 million is spent on the services of county committees, he will publish in detail the audited accounts of each county committee.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will call to the particular attention of the Auditor-General the point of both this Question and the previous Question?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is fully aware that the question was dealt with by the Select Committee on Estimates in their Eleventh Report, on which the Department's observations will be very shortly submitted to the Committee.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the name of the county committee that lost £350,000 in 1947–48.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Why does the Minister wish to hide the inefficiency of this county committee, and will he, if he will not give the name of the committee, sack those responsible for this loss and replace them by decent farmers who know their job?

Mr. Williams: I have already stated, in regard to the recommendations of the Select Committee, that the Department's observations on the Report will very shortly be submitted to that Committee.

Allotment Holders (Tenure)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he intends to introduce legislation dealing with the question of security of tenure of allotment holders.

Mr. T. Williams: This and other matters were the subject of a recent report made to me by the Allotments Advisory Committee, whose services I gratefully acknowledge. The report is at present under examination, and I am not yet able to say when it will be possible to introduce any legislation that may be found necessary.

Colonel Clarke: Does not the Minister agree that the extension of allotments is most desirable, and that one of the greatest deterrents to that extension is the present insecurity of tenure. Will he, therefore, try to expedite legislation in accordance with the agriculture Acts?

Mr. Williams: These are matters dealt with by the committee which has recently reported, and the report is in print at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Vactric Company Limited

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the names and qualifications of the individuals appointed by the Government to the Board of the Vactric Company Limited.

Mrs. Jean Mann: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Before a reply is given to this Question, may I point out that the company concerned is in my constituency? I should be very glad if the Economic Secretary would make it plain from which angle his reply is given—whether it is from the investor's angle—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have supplementary questions before the reply has been given.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): No individuals have been appointed by the Government to the Board of Vactric. The directors who occupy their seats on the Board with Treasury approval are all gentlemen of considerable experience in Scottish industry—Mr. J. Paterson, Mr. C. R. D. Brown and Mr. D. W. L. Menzies.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the present position and prospects of the Vactric Company Limited.

Mr. Jay: I am sure that the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the chairman's remarks at the forthcoming annual general meeting of this company.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Economic Secretary say whether these remarks will put an end to the stories of transactions in which this company is involved which have led to such remarkable fluctuations in the price of the company's shares on the Stock Exchange?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I cannot say in advance what remarks will be made by the chairman.

Exchange Control Offences (Informers)

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in order to limit the possibilities of blackmail or other abuses, he will refrain from making payment to an informer about offences


under the Exchange Control Act unless he is satisfied that the said informer is prepared to give evidence in court in any case that may result.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): No, Sir. The evidence of such a person may not be relevant; and in any event my right hon. and learned Friend would not be prepared to give any such undertaking.

Mr. Bartlett: While I hope the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the last thing I want to do is to allow contemptible people to make money out of the country's difficulties, surely he will admit that this system gives every possible incentive to blackmailers, and that something should be done to prevent it?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On the contrary, a blackmailer usually looks for his reward to his victim, not to the person to whom he has given information. It would be a good thing if the House could get this matter into its proper perspective. The Prime Minister has indicated that these are not powers which any Government use willingly or gladly, but that they are essential at the present time and no Government can afford to relinquish them.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying, in his answer, that the evidence of these people may not be relevant? Surely he is not paying this money to informers for evidence which is not relevant?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I was dealing purely with the evidence, not the reward.

Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving rewards to people who are only able to give irrelevant evidence?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is a Question appearing later on the Order Paper which, if reached, may clear up the point the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the considerable concern about this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing, in the Monthly Digest of Statistics, the amount paid by way of rewards?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That information has been given, and the Prime Minister gave additional figures a few moments

ago. In any case, surely Members opposite believe in incentives.

Joint Incomes (Taxation)

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the net joint income of a single man and a single woman each earning £5,000 per annum; and what their total net income would be in the event of marriage.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The net income, after payment of Income Tax and Surtax, of a single man or woman who earned £5,000 a year would be £2,512. The total net income of a married couple each of whom earned £5,000 a year would be £3,713.

Sir F. Sanderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the loss of income on marriage shows an average of about £25 a week net, and in view of the fact that divorces have increased tenfold since 1939, will he not consider assessing the husband and wife separately, so that it shall no longer pay to live in sin?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Royal Commission on Income Tax, which reported in 1920, went into this matter very fully, and came definitely to the conclusion that the income of the husband and wife should be aggregated for this purpose, although they are able, if so minded, to have separate assessments.

Mr. Stanley: Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes in incentives for informers but not for marriage?

Payments to Directors (Taxation)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his regulations provide for the taxation of payments in shares and cash made by firms to managing directors in consideration of their undertaking not to accept employment by other firms.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. The courts have held that such payments are not liable to tax. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget Speech of 1948 he gave warning that the position would be closely watched and that the Government would not hesitate to propose legislation with retrospective effect to deal with any such devices. That quotation


expresses my right hon. and learned Friend's continued intention

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the -ecent tax free payments of over £100,000 each to Sir John Black, and Mr. Lord, of the Austin Motor Company, have acted as a grave disincentive to production among the workers of Birmingham because of their blatant flaunting of riches at this time of economic difficulty? In view of that will he not, in this exceptional case, consider introducing retrospective legislation, and will he also make sure that that legislation is quickly passed in order to prevent such further evasions of Income Tax and the accumulation of income at the rate of over £4 million in a single year?

Mr. Beswick: When considering this device for the evasion of Income Tax, would my right hon. Friend also look into the practice known as the commutation of pensions rights and compensation for loss of office, both of which devices, as with these restrictive covenants, have been used for some time for the evasion of proper tax liability?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I would remind my hon. Friend that in my answer I indicated that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was considering not only this type of device but also similar devices.

Mr. Erroll: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that without the dynamic energy of these two people there would not be any work for the workers concerned to do?

Mr. Blackburn: While in no way accepting the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) as an authority on the workers in my constituency, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that the payment of very large sums like £137,000, which are not liable to tax, obviously conflicts with the policy of the Government and the extremely loyal way in which the trade union movement is supporting the Government?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. and learned Friend accepts the view that what has happened in these cases is contrary to the spirit of the policy outlined in the White Paper on Personal Incomes Costs and Prices.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this practice is a manifestation of industrial co-partnership or of a property-owning democracy?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Justices of the Peace Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
TUESDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Festival of Britain (Supplementary Provisions) Bill;
Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill. This Bill will be ordered in tonight on the Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution, and copies will be made available to Members tomorrow;
Committee and remaining stages of the Electoral Registers Bill;
Committee and remaining stages of the Married Women (Restraint upon Anticipation) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Parliament Square (Improvements) Bill;
Report and Third Reading of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords];
Report and Third Reading of the Nurses (Scotland) Bill [Lords];
Consideration of Motion to approve the Draft Gas (Staff Compensation) Regulations.
I should remind the House that if a Petition is presented against the Festival of Britain Bill this Bill would have to be considered by a Select Committee. In this event, we shall be unable to proceed with the Bill on Tuesday and will then consider the other Business which I have announced for that day.
The House will realise that similar considerations apply in relation to the Parliament Square Bill, announced for consideration on Wednesday.
THURSDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—Debate on the Report of the British Transport Commission.
FRIDAY, 2ND DECEMBER—Second Reading of the British North America (No. 2) Bill [Lords] and, if agreeable to the House, the Committee and remaining stages;
Further progress will be made with the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill.

Mr, Eden: While I have no comments to make on next week's Business, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be good enough to consider, in due course, the topics which we would like to discuss as the opportunity arises? First, as the recent foreign affairs Debate was largely circumscribed to Europe—and I am not complaining—would it not be a good thing if we could have a discussion about other parts of the world—the Far East, the Middle East and perhaps the Italian Colonies, before the House adjourns for Christmas? Second, another matter, of a more controversial nature, which we should also like to discuss is the report on the K.L.M. accident at Prestwick Airport.

Mr. Morrison: I did not know that these points would be raised, but I will look into them; no doubt they can be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Can my right hon. Friend say when it is proposed to give time for the Report stage and Third Reading of the War Damage (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. Morrison: I have had two rounds about this already, one last Thursday and one the Thursday before, and I cannot think of anything new to say.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the somewhat belated report of the British Electricity Authority will be available to hon. Members?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know; I do not know whether it is belated, and when it will be available.

Mrs. Middleton: Can my right hon. Friend suggest to those Members on all sides of the House who are interested in the War Damage (Amendment) Bill, which he now says he cannot find time

for, some way by which, during the business for the coming week or in succeeding weeks, the question of justice to late claimants for war damage can be discussed? Is he aware that it is more difficult to get justice for late claimants for war damage than it is to get blood out of a stone?

Mr. Morrison: I think that is first-class propaganda, on which I congratulate my hon. Friend. If she goes on like that she will certainly be safe when the Election comes. I am sorry, but the Government do not altogether admit the impeachment. The time for Private Members' legislation that has already reached that stage has passed, and I do not see my way to extend it.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us why on Tuesday' the unfortunate married ladies who are suffering from restraint upon anticipation have been placed last on the list? Could not they be given greater priority, in the hope of adequate Press reports being given to the proceedings?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that I understand the obscure and subtle preliminary part of the hon. and gallant Member's observation.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say when the adjourned Debate on the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Married Women (Maintenance) Bill is likely to come before the House?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know, but their Lordships have been working well in revising Private Members' Bills, thereby rendering a service to the collective Parliamentary institution. I think it will be all right; we are doing all we can to get these Bills through.

Mr. Boothby: In view of the prevailing anxiety in the fishing industry, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the desirability of making an early statement about the intentions of the Government concerning the Sea Fish Industry Bill?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that will be kept in mind.

Mr. Royle: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is the Government's intention to pass the Justices of the Peace Bill [Lords] into law before Christmas?

Mr. Morrison: That is the intention although it will, I confess, depend on a good deal of co-operation on the part of the House because of the time factor. I do not think this is a party Bill, and if it can be dealt with expeditiously, I see no reason why it should not get on to the Statute Book this side of Christmas.

Mr. Charles Williams: Why does the right hon. Gentleman shirk the issue of getting on with the War Damage (Amendment) Bill, which many of us want to see advanced very quickly. Why not allow the House to get on with this good work, instead of wasting time on other things?

Mr. Morrison: That was a very poor effort compared with that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton).

Mr. Parker: Is it proposed to deal with the Adoption of Children Bill before Christmas?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point about private Members' Bills? I quite understand that the time has now expired, but nevertheless, under our Standing Orders, yesterday we set up a Standing Committee to consider the Censorship of Plays (Repeal) Bill. It is a complete waste of time having all this printing done and the people engaged when we cannot possibly go ahead. It is time that the thing was looked at.

Mr. Morrison: When I heard about it the same thought occured to me, but I was told that hon. Members might learn something about drafting points in the course of considering this Bill, and that although those running it knew it was a complete waste of time, they rather liked the idea of meeting. I said if they were happy to meet they could meet, but I agree it is a waste of time. If the hon. Members concerned do not mind. I do not see why I should interfere.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Reverting to Tuesday's business, would my right hon. Friend consider re-arranging the order of business for that day and taking the Married Women (Restraint upon Anticipation) Bill [Lords] earlier in the order of business, so that it will not be blocked as it was last Friday?

Mr. Morrison: I think it will be all right. I do not want to alter the order, but I am noting my hon. Friend's point and we shall seek to take the proper precautions to prevent that happening.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: While thanking the Leader of the House for answering my question in reply to the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), may I ask is it the intention to take the Married Women (Restraint upon Anticipation) Bill [Lords] on Tuesday, whatever the hour and however late the House may sit?

Mr. Morrison: I would not be surprised.

Mr. Braddock: Are we to understand that the Lord President of the Council has no objection to encouraging Members of this House to waste their time, as he describes it, and yet will not give this House the time to deal with the Measure in which we and the public are all interested—the War Damage (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. Morrison: That was not a bad try, but it is really irrelevant.

Mr. Austin: In view of the misrepresentation that is current regarding the payment of informers and the need for clarifying the position, will my right hon. Friend allow a day for discussion of this subject?

Mr. Morrison: I should have thought that rather undesirable.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Leader of the House give some consideration to the Motion on the Order Paper by a number of Scottish M.P.s suggesting an Amendment of the Standing Orders in order to refer more business to the Scottish Grand Committee.

[That, if not less than twelve Members shall have given notice of their intention to move that a matter relating exclusively to Scotland be referred to the Scottish Standing Committee, the matter shall stand referred to the Committee, who shall consider it and report their opinions thereon to the House.

That this Order be a Standing Order Of the House.]

Mr. Morrison: I have not seen it, but I thought the Scottish Grand Committee was doing quite well in the new circumstances, and that the procedure adopted had met with the general approval of the Scottish Members.

Mr. Champion: Will the Lord Presidėnt extend the amount of time available on Thursday next in order to give back benchers a reasonable opportunity for participating in the Debate.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot do that very well, and I think a day for this Debate is about right.

Mr. Norman Smith: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether it is the intention to take the Committee stage of the Justices of the Peace Bill [Lords] upstairs or on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Morrison: We do not usually commit ourselves on these matters, but I think it will probably be taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Fairhurst: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time for a further discussion on the cotton industry and what is taking place there now?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think it is likely. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members from Lancashire get the opportunity on the Adjournment, that is all right. I do not think I can provide special time at this stage.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Griffiths): Today we are taking part in what is likely to be the last Debate in this Parliament on Welsh affairs.
It is, therefore, appropriate that we should take stock of the position and render an account of the Government's work for Wales, and her people, during the last four and a half years. We have recently published the fourth annual White Paper on Government action in Wales. These four reports form a fairly complete account of what we have done. This afternoon I can deal only with some of the salient features of our work and achievement.
It is only against the background of the past, and in particular of the inter-war years, that a fair assessment can be made both of the magnitude of the task that confronted us in 1945 and of the work we have done in Wales. I often hear from the other side of the House scornful references to planners. The economy of the Wales in which I grew up was not planned. I would not have the heart to accuse anyone of having planned it. It just happened—the product of that uncontrolled private enterprise, whose praises we sometimes hear sung in this House. The result was the most ill-balanced economic structure in any part of Britain, if not of the world.
Three-fifths of our industrial workers were concentrated into three industries, coal, iron and tinplate, and slate, or in occupations ancillary to, and dependent on, these basic industries. The countryside in Wales was drained of its population by the pull of industry, until today nearly three-quarters of the population of the 13 counties of Wales is crowded into the narrow industrial belt that spans three counties from Newport to Carmarthen. The depression that followed the First World War brought that crazy economy tumbling down and the consequence was a generation of disintegration, strife and poverty.
During most of the years in the 'twenties and 'thirties more than a quarter of our insured population was


continuously unemployed. Even in 1937, after some hundreds of thousands had been compelled to leave the Valleys, there were still 124,000 unemployed. The war came and its needs and demands found work for most of them. But with the approach of the end of the war our people looked to the future with anxiety and apprehension. They feared a recurrence of what had happened after 1918. That was the background when we took office in 1945.
Four years have gone by, and we can claim with confidence that the story of Wales under the Labour Government since 1945 is in striking contrast to what happened after 1918. We know full well that formidable tasks lie ahead of us and that there is still left much of the legacy of the bad old days, but we can claim that during these four years we have worked hard for the reconstruction of Wales and that the four White Papers to which I have referred are a record of constant endeavour and of considerable definite achievement. I do not want to take up an undue time in opening the Debate and I shall therefore deal briefly with only some aspects of our work. I hope that the House will forgive me if I have to leave the Debate for part of the time in order to attend a committee, but I shall be back as soon as possible.
The two major basic industries in Wales, steel and tinplate, and coal, are in the midst of a great period of technical and mechanical reconstruction. So far as steel and tinplate are concerned, their technical revolution is probably as great as the Industrial Revolution itself. In the not too distant future the new plants being built in West Wales will come into production. I know that there is concern about the redundancy that will follow. The regional office of the Board of Trade, in conjunction with other departments, have recently undertaken a very careful and detailed study of the whole of the steel and tinplate industry of West Wales. That there will eventually be considerable redundancy seems certain, but it is not possible with any degree of accuracy to predict when it will take place.
On the present information available to the Government it is possible to assume that redundancy will take place over a period of five years or more, beginning at the end of 1950. A further

study is now being made by the Board of Trade to ascertain the areas most likely to be affected and in which therefore new industrial development must be fostered to meet the resulting employment need. In due course my colleagues who are responsible will be making a statement to the House and to the country on the matter.
I turn to coal. Of all the coalfields in Britain, the South Wales coalfield suffered most grievously in the depression. At the end of the First World War the coalfields in South Wales employed 270,000 workpeople. Today the numbers have declined to only just over 100,000. I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will realise that a decline of that magnitude was bound to leave behind problems, both technical and human, of the gravest character. The National Coal Board has had, still has and will for some time have a formidable task in modernising production methods in the Welsh pits.
Many of my hon. Friends who have had the same experience as I have will know that even more difficult is the problem of removing the bitterness generated in the old days of strife. I think we can claim that a good beginning has been made. Hon. Members will have read in Appendix VII of the National Coal Board's annual report details of the major capital schemes authorised for the North Wales and South Wales coalfields. They represent a capital investment of more than £6 million. After years of neglect and decay it is encouraging to read once more of new development in the Welsh coalfields.
Other developments connected with mechanisation have shown very striking results. In 1945 the percentage of coal mechanically cut in South Wales and Monmouthshire was 32 per cent. as against 72 per cent. in great Britain as a whole, and the percentage of coal mechanically conveyed was 27 per cent. as against 71 per cent. That technical backwardness was part of the price we paid for the inter-war depression. By 1948 those figures had increased to 42 per cent. and 74 per cent. respectively, representing increases of 20 per cent. and 15 per cent. in a single year, and considerable increases over the 1945 level.
That is a considerable achievement for everyone engaged in the industry in South


Wales. Production. is increasing, and in the 12 months ended 2nd July, 1949, the output of saleable coal in the Welsh coalfield was 711,000 tons up on the previous year. Hon. Members will have seen a report in the newspapers this week that last week's output in South Wales was 496,666 tons, a record for this year. As ever, the Welsh miners are responding to the nation's call. Exports, which in the past have formed such an important part of the economy of South Wales, are also increasing. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will be replying to the Debate and will have more to say on this matter and upon the position of the ports in Wales.
For many year's past the biggest enemy of the Welsh miner has been pneumoconiosis. How serious a problem it is can be seen by studying the figures in paragraph 36 of the White Paper. The House will see at once that the problem is in the main a Welsh one. There are three aspects of the problem to which I would refer. The first is that from 5th July, 1948, the Industrial Injuries Act, for which as Minister I had responsibility, made important changes in respect of the disease. The Silicosis Medical Board no longer suspend a man with pneumoconiosis unless this disease is accompanied by tuberculosis. Diagnosis of the disability may now be made at a much earlier stage of the disease. The board can, and indeed do, recommend that men can continue in underground employment in approved conditions as to dust, subject to re-examination at intervals of not more than 12 months.
I took responsibility, after full consultation with both sides of the industry and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power for this arrangement. I believe that hon. Members will agree that the system by which men are examined every 12 months is a vast improvement upon the old system by which they were given a certificate once, after which nobody bothered. Too often it was a certificate of death. It is too early to say whether the new scheme is successful, but it is encouraging, and we shall watch it with very great care.
The second point is that control of pneumoconiosis, as will be seen from paragraph 37 of the White Paper is being undertaken. Steady progress is being

made in the application of methods of dust suppression. One of the things that we have to convey to the men affected is that quick results in these efforts cannot be expected. Pneumoconiosis is not a disease that develops in a day or a month. It may take years. We shall see the results of our dust suppression increasing as the months and the years go by.
I want to pay a tribute to the work that has been done by Doctor Fletcher and his team in consultation with the Silicosis Medical Boards and the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit at Llandaff Hospital, Cardiff. They are conducting research into the diagnosis and treatment of the disease and, in particular, into rehabilitation of the victims. Pneumoconiosis is a tough and deadly enemy, but I have always believed, and I still believe, that by our combined efforts we can and shall overcome it. It is certain that the future of the South Wales coalfield depends upon our being able to do so.
The slate quarries have also been plagued with dust diseases. We are very glad indeed to have reports of experiments that have been conducted for some time in certain of the North Wales quarries in the allaying of dust, particularly in the slate and splitting sheds where they show encouraging results. We shall do our best to see that they go on.
With slate, as with the other basic industries, the position in Wales today is very different from what it was in prewar days. Then it was a matter of masses of able-bodied unemployed. Today we find that each of our basic industries—coal, iron and steel, tin plate and slate—report the same facts, that the demand for their products exceeds supply and that there is a shortage of skilled men. This is a feature, and a disturbing feature, of the economic position in Wales today. We have jobs available in all the heavy ' industries and we cannot fill them.
At the same time, we have 36,000 unemployed, and if these people could work in the heavy industries, there need not, and there would not, be one unemployed man in Wales tomorrow; but the fact is that in the main, apart from those who are unemployed for short periods between one spell of work and another, these men are unable to work in the heavy industries because of disability or because they


are too old. They present a special problem of a difficult character.
This brings me to what has been one of the main objectives of Government policy, and that is to seek to build a new diversified industrial structure for Wales. As is shown in paragraph 74 of the White Paper, well over 600 new industrial projects have been established in Wales since 1945, a record of which the Government has every right to be proud. Of this total, 408 of the projects are by new firms, of whom 275 have come from outside Wales, and the remaining 133 are new firms arising in Wales itself. In spite of great handicaps, very good progress has been made with the factory building programme, and as the White Paper points out, the number of new factories and extensions completed in the year under review was 201, being almost double the number completed during the previous year. Since the war work has been provided in these new industries in Wales for over 45,000 workers—28,000 men and 17,000 women.
Here I might mention something of importance to everybody in Wales and of particular importance to hon. Members from North Wales and from Caernarvonshire in particular, and that is the Nantlle and Blaenau Ffestiniog proposal. The Treasury have approved loans from the Development Fund of £50,000 to the Gwyrfai Rural District Council and the Ffestiniog Urban District Council for the construction in each area of 10,000 square feet of factory space to meet their special employment needs. The terms of the loan are on a favourable basis, and I am able to announce that the local authorities may now proceed with the practical steps to have the factories built.
The result of all these developments has been that once again the number of insured workers in Wales is on the increase. For over a quarter of a century each year saw a decline, often a steep decline, in the number. We have stopped the rot and we are now building up again. In July, 1948, the number of insured workers in Wales and Monmouthshire was 736,000, 48,000 more in work than in July, 1939. Unemployment is still at a high figure and is a problem which leaves no room for complacency, and the Government will not be complacent about it.
Last month the unemployment figure was 36,223, including 10,044 women. Serious as this is, it is less than one-third of the number of unemployed in 1939 and less than one-sixth of the number unemployed in 1932. As I have already indicated, the most serious aspect of the problem is the large proportion of unemployed disabled men. From the last count it appears that there are in Wales 12,000 registered disabled persons who are unemployed, and of these 4,224 were men disabled by pneumoconiosis. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who has done much pioneering work in many other fields, will perhaps join me in saying that, judging by his experience which is longer than mine, if half the time and money spent on fightting about pneumoconiosis cases in the courts had been spent on preventing it and rehabilitating the sufferers, we should be in a happier position today. One thing of which I am glad is that the Industrial Injuries Act has put an end to the sorry chapter of wasting money in that way.
Some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Gower presided over a committee which examined the matter and recommended to the Government that a number of special factories should be built which will for ever bear his name. One of the disappointments we have had is that getting these factories occupied or developed as quickly as we would like, has been and still is a very difficult problem. Ten of the factories have been constructed, as was recommended by the committee. Five are now occupied and by September provided employment for 160 people, and they continue to develop. However, five of the factories are still unoccupied and so far all efforts to secure suitable tenants for them have failed. In addition, there are five Advance factories which remain idle so far. The Government are giving urgent attention to this problem and we are now considering how work can be brought to these idle factories.
Hon. Members will expect me to say something, for I know they are concerned about the position, of the possible effect of the economies in capital investment on the position in Wales. In present circumstances further Advance factory construction cannot be undertaken, but new projects are exempted from the building


restrictions if they satisfy the tests imposed by the capital investment programme, that is, if they will result in increased exports, or import savings, or satisfy an essential home need. Since October, 1947, 45 building projects totalling 950,000 square feet of Government-financed premises in South Wales have thus been exempted, including 39 new factories and factory extensions and three adaptations. These figures compare very favourably with other Development Areas.
Leaving industry and turning to agriculture and the countryside, since the war the House has passed three great Measures designed to put rural life and agriculture on a proper and prosperous basis. They are the Forestry Act, 1945, the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and the Agriculture Act, 1947. Perhaps it is not always appreciated that special machinery was established under each of these Acts to look after Welsh interests. They were the Welsh National Committee of the Forestry Commission, the Advisory Sub-Committee for Wales under the Hill Farming Act, and the Welsh Land Sub-Commission set up under the Agriculture Act. With the county agricultural executive committees, and assisted by the Ministry's officers in Wales, these bodies play an extremely important part in the rural life of the Principality. Rural Wales is making good progress towards achieving its share of the expansion programme, which aims to increase production by 1952 to 50 per cent. above the pre-war level. I know that it is finding the guaranteed markets and prices provided by the 1947 Act of real help in its work.
My hon. Friend, in his reply this evening, will give more details of the agricultural position and will in particular deal with the problem which I know is of very great interest to many hon. Members, the improvement of amenities of all kinds and the development of the public services in the countryside of Wales. I confine myself to saying with confidence that these are better days for Welsh farmers and farmworkers than they have known for many a long year. As one of them said to me in the Towy Valley the other day, "This is the best Government and the best Minister of Agriculture farmers have ever had."
If I turn to education for a moment it is because this is a subject upon which

many of my hon. Friends would like me to touch and some will, I know, devote the main part of their speeches to it. In the year which we are reviewing the most notable step taken in Welsh education has been the setting up in July, 1948, of the Welsh Joint Education Committee. I used to hear talk of this as a boy. Other parties promised to do it, but it is Labour that gets things done, and we had to wait for a Labour Government to get the Joint Committee to which we have been looking forward for 50 years. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that July, 1948, is of some significance to me as a Minister and I think it is assured of a place in British as well as in Welsh history.
Among the important duties which the joint committee has assumed are those formerly undertaken by the advisory councils for technical education in North and South Wales. Now the joint committee will undertake the further development of technical education which is an urgent and vital necessity in Wales, made all the more vital and all the more urgent because of the modernisation of the old and the establishment of new industries. Hon. Members who have experience of the Welsh universities and grammar schools will perhaps permit me as a layman to say one or two words about education. In past years, for reasons we all understood, education was regarded in Wales as an avenue through which to escape from industry. Now it has become essential, at least in part, as an avenue for training young people for the new opportunities that await them, and will await them in ever greater numbers in the new Wales we are building.
I would also draw attention to another development that has taken place, and which was due so much to the encouragement of my good friend the Minister of Education and to the hard work of the Parliamentary Secretary in all these fields. I refer to the encouragement given to the new development of special Welsh schools where tuition is in our mother tongue. I hope my hon. Friends from Wales will not consider me immodest if I remind them that the first of these schools was set up at Llanelly by a Labour authority. We do not boast of our nationalism at Llanelly. For us, in this best of all Welsh towns, nationalism


is, in the words of the popular song, "Just doing what comes naturally." We Welsh people are at our best when our nationalism is natural and at our worst when it is a cheap imitation of Hitler or Mussolini.
It is, by the date, exactly a year today since we had a Debate in which the main theme was the decision of the Government, then announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord President, to set up a Council for Wales. The Council was inaugurated in May last and is now settling down to its work. Whatever doubts there may have been about the wisdom of setting it up or, indeed, as to what place it should occupy in Welsh life or what service it could render, I hope that all those have been set at rest by the announcement, noted in the White Paper, that the Council has decided to concentrate on three important problems and has set up special sub-committees, which will be adequately serviced to study these three problems.
The first problem is the causes of the migration from the Welsh countryside, the practical measures to be taken for improving living conditions in rural Wales consistent with its traditions and culture, the revival of rural industries of appropriate kinds and, generally, the steps necessary to rehabilitate the rural areas of Wales as a whole. I think we all realise how essential it is to stress in these days that what has caused the depopulation of rural Wales is poverty. It is easy to seek an escape by calling it something else but my hon. Friends know it is still a poverty stricken life.
When I introduced the Insurance Act, some hon. Members who represent rural areas were frightened that the new social security scheme might be abortive in the rural areas because the farmers and their sons and daughters who work so hard might not be able to afford the contributions. Indeed, some of them told me that occupier-farmers in Wales at the end of a week were in many cases much worse off than if they had been farmworkers enjoying the new wage levels established under this Labour Government. Therefore, we wish the council well in studying this problem, and they might begin where the right hon. and

learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) started in his valuable report of 10 or 11 years ago.
The second problem to which they will give their attention is that of unemployment, with special reference to the high proportion of disabled persons. This is a problem to which I have already made some reference. The third problem is closely associated with the first one of rural depopulation and is that of marginal land. These seem to us to be problems of the first importance and we all wish the council well in their consideration of them. In their task they will have the fullest help that the Civil Service can give, and I can assure them that just as the Labour Government of 1945 established the council, so the Labour Government of 1950 will give full consideration to the advice they give us on these important problems.
There are many other aspects with which I should like to deal, but I propose now to conclude because I know that hon. Members will be anxious to take part in the Debate. Let me say in conclusion that in these past four and a half years there have been many changes in Welsh life. The old industries are being reconstructed, are being revivified, are beginning a new chapter which we all hope and believe will be a happier chapter, particularly in coal which is the industry in which I have spent much of my life. We are diversifying the industry and building a new industrial structure. There is a revival in agriculture. The basic services are being improved in both urban and rural areas, particularly the latter, as my hon. Friend will show.
The most important and significant change is in the outlook of the Welsh people. There has been a revolution in Welsh social conditions. Those who knew Wales between the wars will have vivid recollections of the atmosphere of helplessness and hopelessness that prevailed. Now the awful sense of stagnation—the feeling that life had come to an end in both the industrial and the rural areas has been changed. Today there is a new buoyancy in the outlook of all our people and faith in the future.
The day will come in the not too distant future—a day we await with complete confidence—when the Labour Government and the Labour Party will seek a renewal of its mandate. The


Welsh people will then have an opportunity, as will the British people, of passing judgment on our work. Just as I am confident about the verdict of the British people, I am supremely confident about the verdict of the Welsh people. I am certain that they will say to us, "Well done, good and faithful servant; carry on and finish the job you have so well begun."

4.20 p.m.

Professor Gruffydd: When I spoke in the last Welsh Debate I prophesied that that would be my last appearance upon that stage, but unfortunately our respected and beloved chairman the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) is ill and I am here today not by virtue of myself but as his deputy. I am sure that all the House will join with me in wishing him a very quick recovery. We all miss his engaging personality and particularly his brand of mordancy of wit.
It is impossible for me to cover all the points of interest in the White paper. Other hon. Members will undoubtedly address themselves to its various sections. I shall not try to make a party speech, but at the same time I am speaking as an Opposition Member. I reconcile those two statements by suggesting that on this Welsh day all Welsh Members, whether Labour, Liberal or Conservative, are in opposition -except, of course, those in office. In general, I find the White Paper very incoherent. It has the deceptive appearance of a complete report, but so many relevant details are omitted or, at least, hidden and obscured that one seems to know less about Wales after reading it than before doing so.
Let me give two examples. My first is from the section on education, because my ignorance on that subject is less profound than it is on some of the others. Paragraph 223 mentions teachers who work full-time in the schools, and the ratio is given of 23 children to one teacher. At first sight that is not bad—I dare say a good many people in England would be very glad to think that their ratio was as low as that—but after a little thought one realises that secondary and primary teachers are all jumbled together here and that no separate figures are given for each of these

branches, as we certainly have the right to expect in a report of this kind.
Furthermore, in the figure of 23 to 1 there are included a vast number of small rural schools where the ratio of teachers to pupils is necessarily abnormally high. In other words, the figure of 23 to one means nothing whatsoever. It has no significance and does not help us in any way to make up our minds about the state of Welsh education. It gives no light at all on the large classes in urban areas and, in particular, on the shortage of qualified science teachers for the grammar schools in all areas. These two matters are passed over in complete silence.
In this same education section the only help we get to estimate the number of teachers being now trained must depend on the obscure indications of a paragraph dealing with the school leaving age. It is absolutely staggering to gather from that paragraph that only 72 men—52 entrants this year, and 20 last year—are at present being trained in Welsh training colleges. That is not, of course, the whole picture, but there is nothing whatsoever in the White Paper to help us to correct this impression. I have been unable to find one word in the whole of the Paper about the teachers who are being trained, for instance, in the university training department. What is the reason for this omission? Why have we to get what knowledge we have—and that, at best, an entirely incomplete knowledge—of the teachers being trained in Wales from the totally irrelevant paragraph dealing with the school leaving age of all things?
My second example is taken from pages 20 and 22 of the White Paper and relates to agriculture. The total tillage in Wales, apparently, has dropped from 657,000 acres to 632,000 acres; yet the ploughing grants for the same period are up from £200,000 to £602,000, I suppose there is a very simple explanation of this. I know it is partly because the amount of the grant has gone up, but that alone certainly will not cover all of the enormous difference between £200,000 and £602,000. If there is an explanation, surely the White Paper, had it been properly drawn up, ought to supply the means of discovering what it is.
While I am dealing with the agricultural section of the White Paper, I hope


that the House will note the alarming fall in the numbers of agricultural buildings. These figures hide a very tragic truth, and this is part of it. In North Wales at any rate, and, I believe, in some parts of South Wales also, when a farmhouse which has been associated with the life of the community for centuries, and which may have become famous in the history of Wales, becomes uninhabitable, the landlord generally makes no attempt to repair or to rebuild it, he merely scraps the farm as a separate farming unit; and that farm, with its history and, very often, its lovely name, no longer figures in the complex life of the countryside. Its area is added to the acreage of the neighbouring farms and another important episode in the life of Wales has closed.
From the point of view of agricultural economy this may be a reasonable policy—I do not know; but it is ruinously fatal to the communal life of the countryside and is another factor in the depletion of rural Wales. But, of course, it is no concern of the Olympians at Whitehall that in Wales another farming family has become extinct.
I turn now to a great Welsh mystery, the Council for Wales. I expected that the White Paper, in spite of the august silence which surrounds the council and its doings, if any, would say something to allay the general apprehension regarding the council; something that would be at least a partial justification for its existence. But I was disappointed, and I am quite sure that all hon. Members who have read the White Paper have been equally disappointed. Apart from a repetition of the official description of the council, which we have already had, we have five lines and one footnote, from which it appears that the council has met three times.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Four times.

Professor Gruffydd: From my reading of the White Paper my mathematics can extract only three meetings. That is all we hear about the council in the White Paper. We know nothing of what they did, or the means by which they propose to deal with the three very important problems that are mentioned in the footnote. Of course, I am using the wrong

words when I say "deal with." They cannot deal with anything, but can only talk about it. Theirs is not to do or die, theirs is just to reason why. In short, the White Paper just marks another stage in our progressive disappointment and frustration, and I am more than ever convinced that there is no remedy, or even alleviation, except to gives Wales the management of her own concerns. Those who prepare these yearly reports would be doing something worth while if they were to give us the facts of the economic condition of Wales. I will explain what I mean by that; this White Paper certainly does not do so; neither have previous White Papers done so. In addition to the very scrappy statistics before us, we should be given some financial figures to help us to see what sort of balance sheet Wales can produce, what part, for instance, of the national revenue is derived from Wales and what part of the national revenue goes back to Wales.'
What is the contribution of Wales to the whole economy of Britain? We have seen today what happens in Wales. The Nationalist Party are getting very fashionable. The people who threw down those leaflets from the gallery this afternoon were republicans and not members of the Nationalist Party. One of its main arguments is that Britain as a whole takes more out of Wales than it puts into Wales. Is this correct, or, on the other hand, is it wrong? Are the Government afraid of publishing separate figures for Wales, or is Wales so submerged under the machinery of English administration that it is impossible to arrive at those figures?
I know I should be out of Order if I were today to advocate a Welsh Parliament, because that would require legislation, but I think I shall be in Order if I try to point out some of the results of leaving an adult and mature nation without effective control over her own affairs. Those who know what Wales has done by purely voluntary effort, with no help whatever from governments, those who know, for instance, of the creation of that magnificent achievement, the National Eisteddfod of Wales, must admit that if ever there was a nation of common people in the world able to look after their own affairs, it is the Welsh nation. One result of denying Wales a really responsible part in its own affairs


is that it has sickened under a thick pestilential rash of consultative councils; bodies which, for all practical purposes, are deaf and dumb and, for the most part, pathetically useless. Wales has become, and is regarded by these councils, as a stamping ground for local councillors and aldermen.
We Welshmen of the 19th Century, I need not remind my colleagues, used to be very complacent about ourselves—much more complacent than we are today. We used to call ourselves "Gwlad y Gdn," the Land of Song, "Gwlad y Menyg Gwynion," Land of the White Gloves, and other congratulatory epithets. Those epithets may be still true, but they do not describe Wales today. Wales had much better begin to call itself the Land of Consultative Aldermen. This suits very well all the political parties, not only the Labour Party, but the Conservatives and Liberals equally, because it is these irresponsible aldermen who are in charge of the party machines in the constituencies and they are the people who have to be kept in power since they are important when the choice comes of the next Parliamentary candidates.
Meanwhile, there is no national guidance, and the old Wales we knew, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said in his opening speech, is fast disappearing, especially in its rural parts. Everything is conspiring to destroy it. That "everything" includes a good deal of the activities of Government and when I say Government I do not mean the Labour Government; I mean the Government of Westminster. It includes, for instance, the War Office and the Air Ministry, who have taken such a slice of rural Wales as they would not dare to take from England. Yes, even a beneficent activity like forestry has earned the enmity of my countrymen, as anyone can realise who knows what is now going on in the Upper Towy Valley. This is because policies for Wales are formulated in England which knows almost as little about Wales as they know about the Colonies.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Assuming that all this is correct, all the continual neglect of Wales by this Government, will the hon. Member explain whv successive Liberal Governments—and I presume he is speaking as a mem-

ber of the Liberal Party—did not do what the hon. Member complains this Government should do?

Professor Gruffydd: The answer is very simple. I cannot begin to talk about it now; I should be out of Order if I began speaking about Welsh Disestablishment, the Sunday Closing Act and so on. all of which were passed by Liberal Governments. I am not speaking as a Liberal on this occasion, but as a member of the Welsh opposition to Governments of all parties.
The White Paper makes a great point about the factories which the Government are building, or intend to build, in Wales. We are expected to regard the construction of these factories as a favour and I am sorry to hear a Welshman speaking of them very much in the same way as Herr Adenauer would speak of concessions from the occupying powers. But the construction of these factories should be an inevitable part and an inevitable development of a free Welsh economic life, as it would be if Wales had charge of her own affairs.
I should like to mention one activity in which Wales leads the whole of Britain—I am in Order in doing so because it is mentioned in the White Paper—and to invite the House to consider the difference between the treatment of this Welsh activity and something similar in England. I refer to St. Fagans Folk Museum of Wales. The additional grant made to the National Museum of Wales to meet the cost of St. Fagans is precisely £1,000. The heavy cost of this magnificent institution has had to be covered by subscriptions from the poor and middle classes of Wales.
May I ask what happens in similar circumstances in England? At present the money pressure in that great institution at St. Fagans is due to the purchase of furniture which has been manufactured for use in Wales and which has been used in Welsh homes during the centuries. When it was decided that the furniture of Ham House in England should be acquired for the nation were the common people of England invited to contribute to its cost? Did anyone outside Government circles have to put their hands in their pockets to secure it? Oh no, the Treasury, without a murmur, forked out £100,000 for the purpose—and the National


Museum of Wales has £1,000 for something much bigger.
I revert for a moment to the problem of rural areas, which are the very metropolis of our Welsh national life. It will be noticed that unemployment in those areas is serious, but the White Paper successfully masks its tragic extent because it gives no figures which I can discover of the emigration from the rural areas not merely to other parts of Wales but to England and other parts of the world. We can obtain no idea of the condition of rural Wales and the depletion which it suffers unless we know the figures of that emigration.
We are duly thankful for all favours; we are glad to have factories and new industries to help to keep the integration of Welsh life, but our national monuments are not stone and mortar, they cannot very well be included in the White Paper, and I will say that as some excuse for the Government in that respect; they are our traditions, our cultural and historical association. I know that these traditions and these associations can only be preserved by the integrated activities of a nation which knows and is allowed to control its own destiny, and which can choose and regulate the means of achieving it. Wales has no hope whatever of doing that unless it is allowed to govern itself in its own Parliament.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Price-White: The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) spoke on behalf of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, and it would therefore not be germane for me, as a member of that party, to follow him in his observations. I would say, however, that he revealed that independence and mild rebelliousness which is one of the more likeable features of his most popular make-up.
The House will understand that it is not general on this side of the House to ascribe to political opponents certain parasitical classifications such as unfortunately emanate from certain right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who are not present today. I will therefore say at the outset that we all welcome the action of the Government in asking the Minister of National Insurance to open this Debate. However one may disagree with him in politics,

one regards him as possessing all the fervour and all the spirit, with a heart in the right place, of all good Welshmen. I will go so far as to say that it is only when the right hon. Gentleman enters the sphere of political polemics that I suspect mental derangement on his part. We welcomed his opening the Debate, but his claims of what he sincerely believed to be the achievements of the Government in Wales portrayed, I thought, a tendency towards complacency which, if continued, might prove a great danger to the future of Wales. I hope to touch on one or two aspects in which I thought he displayed that complacency.
Let us examine the very purpose of this Debate and its history. It is to examine the record and the proposals of the Government White Paper on Wales. Almost two years ago, on the occasion of the last Welsh Debate but one, the present President of the Board of Trade, having been subjected to considerable criticism in that Debate by his friends on the other side of the House, said rather plaintively:
We are only too anxious to learn in what form it would be most convenient to them"—
the Welsh Members—
to have the information which one would like them to have in preparation for the next Debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 702.]
It is still true of the Welsh White Paper, as it was at that time, that rather misleading information has been issued. That has been the case for the last two years. Two years ago the White Paper was issued two months before it was debated; 12 months ago it was issued one month before it was debated; this year it was issued about a week ago. I assume that if next year the same Government are in power, which I doubt, we shall be debating the White Paper before it is issued. Welsh Members of Parliament can reasonably ask the Government to produce their record of achievement in time to give Members a little more time than a week to appreciate the reactions of those most vitally affected by it.
I cannot deal with the White Paper without criticising it as tending to be a collection of bits and pieces. It is almost as though the Government has been a wandering minstrel wandering up and down Wales and that these are the "shreds and patches" of which the minstrel sings, although there is no


soporific as in the case of the music of Sullivan.
One has only to consider some of the points which are hopelessly out of date. We are told for example that it is hoped to complete the operation of lifting the "Pluto" pipeline "this summer "—which is last summer, and we are informed about it this summer. We are informed that two years ago an attempt was made to establish a herring industry at Holyhead—that must have been very pleasant reading for the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) for we know that she is fond of Holyhead, and I am credibly informed that she is fond of herring—but that that attempt failed. That is not the sort of up-to-date information which one would expect in a book of this kind. We were told in one sentence that the time-Fable of the Welsh air service was—in a perfectly priceless piece of English:
initially, not wholly attractive to passengers from North Wales….
That is one of the most wonderful bits of planning of which I have heard. But the White Paper entirely forgets to tell us that the air service has proved, as was inevitable, a "flop" and has now finished. That sort of thing does not make this a completely helpful White Paper.
I deplore most of all about this White Paper the fact that there appears to be no consecutive planning for the future; there is no objective in policy for the future explained in general or detail. Therefore, we on these benches, with all due modesty, beg to differ from the Government. We have at least produced the first cohesive detailed policy for Wales which any party has produced in the past years, a policy with which I shall deal later, and which in due course it will be our pleasant duty to implement.
What were we given in Wales last year as the means of our salvation? The Council for Wales, which was very ill received and greatly handicapped from its inception. I am in no sense criticising the members of that Council individually, for we all know them to be a body of very public-spirited men and women. But it does not look as if the Council, judging by its first operations, will prove the answer to the need for producing in Wales all that is best for Wales. It was only natural that the Council should

have been so criticised. It was hurriedly conceived, hastily born and is now suckling in secret while its foster mother, the Lord President of the Council, is busily making a play-pen in Battersea Park. The Council, from its inception, has not been able to appreciate what we are seeking for Wales.
We on the Conservative benches propose a Minister in the Cabinet with direct and special responsibility for Wales, with that responsibility clearly marked and recognised. We feel that under him the Council would become more effective and properly effective. As it is constituted, and in its present form, we feel that it will prove to be somewhat innocuous. We do not dismiss it or condemn it because of its name and constitution. We propose—and feel that the Government should follow our proposal—that the Council should be directly connected with a real executive and effective power within the Cabinet, and no lower than that.
In opening the Debate the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly pointed out that in the great coal industry of Wales there are still many grave problems to be faced and overcome. In that I am certain we all agree. I may, quite rightly, be considered in some respects presumptuous in referring to coalmines, but on reading the White Paper I found one or two disturbing features, which the right hon. Gentleman and those of his colleagues more familiar with coalmining will appreciate better than I do. The production of saleable coal from the North Wales coalfield is decreasing, although the tonnage coming up is greater. I submit that that presents a problem which has to be watched with care. If the progression of mechanical cutting is not followed by an equal progression in mechanical washing, we shall have an increased tonnage but less saleable coal, with dire results to Welsh industries as a whole. That suggestion is put forward, not so much as a criticism, but as an indication that the White Paper presents as yet a by no means perfect picture of the coal industry.
Another disturbing feature, which may indicate that things are not so rosy in the industry under nationalisation as was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, is the increase in absenteeism at the coalface. The White Paper tells us


that, from the beginning of the third quarter of 1947 to the end of the second quarter of 1948 inclusive, absenteeism amounted to 11.50 per cent. From the end of the third quarter of 1948 to the second quarter of 1949, it was 13.92 per cent. That represents an increase of 19 per cent. as opposed to the figure for the rest of the United Kingdom of 10 per cent. That is something which we have to examine, and which entitles one to doubt whether the state of affairs among the Welsh coalminers under nationalisation is all that we are told it is.
Another feature is that the increase in accidents due to falls is directly attributed to an increased disregard of the regulations. Luckily the fatalities from these accidents show a decline in the past year. But if this increase is the result of a disregard of regulations, the right hon. Gentleman may be accused of complacency in what he told us earlier about that industry.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the allocation of the new tinplate mines. I was glad to know that he, and I assume the Government, appreciate the danger of pockets of unemployment when these great new centres are opened and in operation. It is a problem which may suddenly appear in South Wales. I trust that the Government will have the good sense to plan for it now, and not wait until the problem turns up and then endeavour to deal with it ineffectively.
I wish to deal briefly with certain proposals in the White Paper referring to hydro-electrical development; a matter which is causing contention in North Wales, having regard to the provisions of what is certainly a vast scheme by the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board. We must be prepared to develop our potentialities in Wales, hydro-electrical or otherwise, to the full. We must also, after having regard to our own demands, be prepared to share our production fairly and equally with others. But there is grave concern, and properly so, amongst local authorities' associations and individuals in North Wales as to the vastness of this proposal for Snowdonia.
It is to the credit of the Board that they made known the tremendous scope of this proposal as soon as possible, because it

would be a very dangerous thing if, as so often happens, something were proposed, signed sealed and delivered before the persons most affected knew of its very existence. I hope that some form of sensible compromise may be brought about whereby we produce such hydro-electricity in North Wales as we can, without spoiling one of the most beautiful bits of scenery in the world. As at present constituted, the plan proposes a power station, of all things, slap in the middle of Aberglaslyn Pass. Surely that can be avoided. I trust that all interested parties will be fully apprised of this scheme and will have an opportunity to express their opinions, and that, where a sensible compromise is possible, the protection of the North Wales scenery will be achieved.
It has not yet been proved that the vast amounts proposed to be spent on this hydro-electrical scheme are justified, having regard to the amount of electricity to be produced. We do not mind producing electricity, provided we can be assured that we shall have first priority for the service in our rural areas, for the electrification of farms and businesses. But the spoliation of the countryside to provide a few extra million kilowatts for Stoke-on-Trent is something to which we would, quite properly, never agree. If these schemes are proposed, there will have to be some protection of the countryside and no exploitation of our resources for the sake of the general grid.
The right hon. Gentleman touched briefly on the Welsh ports. We are glad to know that they are working under better conditions than was the case a few months ago. A return to the artificial prosperity of the war years is impossible, and I trust that the reason for that artificial prosperity may never come back. At the same time, I enjoin on hon. Members opposite, and hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House, not to laugh at what is proposed in the Conservative policy, but to study it. It may well be something which they will have to fight harder than they expect at the next Election, because they have nothing similar to hold up against it. I ask the Government, and especially the Minister of Transport, who is so vitally affected, to pay due regard, in spite of necessary economy cuts, to the opening up of the Welsh ports by new roads to


the Midland regions and elsewhere. A real revival can never come until these communications are vastly improved.
I trust that the Government will carefully watch the diversification of industry. The light industries, of which so many appeared in Wales during the war, and since, are apt to prove themselves a mixed blessing. I trust that they will not distract attention from the really important heavy and medium industries. When one reads the White Paper, one appreciates that there is a danger that something of that sort might happen. We have already six million square feet of factory space built under the programme, and another 13 million square feet are envisaged. Yet, at the same time our labour force is limited. The demand for fit males for the heavy industries is acute.
From the White Paper it would appear that factory development has gone ahead without due consideration of the labour available for staffing the factories when they achieve production. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have lost sight of that point. It is a matter which we on these benches must keep under the most minute and detailed examination if the whole idea of the redevelopment of factories is not to lose its effectiveness because of a disregard of the labour available.

Mr. Granville West: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government should stop the building of factories because of the shortage of labour, or that labour should be brought to the factories from outside?

Mr. Price-White: I suggest that the Government, as they proceed from factory to factory, should plan according to the available labour in the various localities and elsewhere. I need only instance the fact that there are six factories which have tenants. We are not told how many are in production. There are four other factories, and we are told that one or two tenants are being considered. Why in these days should we go charging on with the erection of factories unless we are satisfied that the troops will be there to man them?
On the question of agriculture, the acreage under tillage in Wales fell by 25,000 acres last year. That decrease does not apply to Wales alone I am afraid that it is general throughout the

country. The Minister of Agriculture must be concerned as to whether the targets for 1950 and 1951 will be achieved. To a great extent the trouble is that the farmer has been asked to advance on three fronts at the same time. He is asked to produce feedingstuffs, food for human consumption and crops all at the same time.
Again, the trouble is the absence of an adequate labour force. I think that the farming community were prepared to accept the gradual reduction and eventual disappearance of the male agricultural labour pool which was announced recently by the Government. A matter for deep concern was the announcement a few days ago of the decision to disband completely the Women's Land Army. A labour force of 15,000 women for the farms will disappear by a stroke of a ministerial pen. Can we achieve our agricultural targets if something is not done to remedy the situation? I trust that the disbanding of the Women's Land Army will be delayed until the labour position improves.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the disbanding of the force as a force because of its administrative costs in relation to its numbers, does not mean the disappearance of the women from the industry. There is nothing to stop farmers employing and paying the women directly and treating them as ordinary workers in the industry. Indeed, one hopes that everything will be done to encourage the farmers to do that, and I am sure that they will.

Mr. Price-White: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that interjection which will certainly allay great fears which have arisen in the minds of many farmers in Wales. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) will know that the National Farmers' Union of that county were so concerned at the labour position that they passed a resolution which will reach the Minister in due course. That resolution doubts whether the farmers of that county will be able to achieve their targets unless the labour position changes for the better.
The Hill Farming Act, which affects us very much in North Wales, has not had a very happy result. Almost four seasons


have passed since it became law, and only 74 schemes have been approved in detail out of 1,391 which have been submitted. Apart from certain minor routine works, no evidence of one single comprehensive scheme being approved has yet been seen. The hill farming community are beginning to form the impression that the whole business is a bit of political window-dressing and nothing more. The sooner something is done to ensure that the Hill Farming Act receives a far more practical implementation, the better it will be. We on this side of the House submit that something in the nature of a Hill Farming Act is necessary to deal with marginal land in Wales.
In the White Paper, as the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) will have noted, slate quarrying enjoys three short paragraphs. One deals with the subject mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, which we all welcome, I refer to the progress achieved in the allaying of dust in the quarries. I hope that that work continues. People in the quarrying industry wonder where the Rees Report has been pigeon-holed. It was published in 1946, but since then nothing has been done. We as the official Opposition, press that the Rees Report should be brought out, the dust shaken off it, and its recommendations put speedily into operation.
The quarrying industry of North Wales has an opportunity such as it has never had before to enter markets everywhere, but in certain respects it is handicapped by controls. I note that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is present. I do not know whether it was during the time that he has held office that this trouble occurred, but the Board of Trade sanctioned the export to Eire of 40 tons of good Welsh slate. The Ministry of Works said that the slate had to measure 12 inches by 12 inches. The Irishman said that he did not like that and if he could not have slate measuring 12 inches by 18 inches he would not take delivery of the 40 tons. It took about one month of negotiation to get that 40 tons of slate into the new market. That is the sort of thing that happens, and it irritates the people in industry.
As in other industries, the quarrying industry has a labour problem largely

brought about by the lack of skilled rockmen and other workers. Part of our Conservative policy for Wales is an increase as soon as possible in the number of technical schools so that we can provide for our slate quarries young trained rockmen. We want to provide attractions in the slate-quarrying industry in order to build up the labour force and give the industry a chance which, if something is not done quickly, it will lose.
By the end of this Debate the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may be forgiven for saying, "Well, what do you Welsh people want?" There will be demands made from all parts of the House, and I would not blame any Member of the Government who scratched his head and asked, "What do you want?" This afternoon we have had an example from the Public Gallery of what I am glad to say only a very small proportion of Welsh people want. The great cry is for a Welsh Parliament within five years. We had a broad hint from the hon. Member for the University of Wales. I am not prepared to say that a Welsh Parliament—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr, Bowles): That would require legislation, and therefore it is out of Order to discuss it on the Adjournment.

Mr. Price-White: I overlooked that, and I apologise. Perhaps we shall find out the real answer through the Minister and the Council which the Conservatives will be setting up some time in the middle of next summer.
We are told in certain quarters of certain injustices which we are enduring at the hands, not of the wicked Tories, for a change, but of the wicked English. Quite frankly, that is a state of affairs which I have not noticed particularly, and which I will not accept. At the same time, one must make the reservation that there is very much to be done before we receive full recognition of our national entity and background and the potentialities of our race. The question is how and when that objective may be achieved. But of one thing I am certain, and that is that this White Paper gives us no great encouragement that that goal is immediately to hand.
There is one tendency which, in all sincerity, I deplore. It is the tendency in certain quarters of Wales to moan


about our alleged injustices and about our lack of opportunities. Why cannot we Welsh take a greater pride in our race, our history and our potentialities? Let us hear a little less about wasting time and opportunities, and less denigration of the people of our country.
Whether the White Paper is the answer, or whether it will produce the answer, I very much doubt. The Welsh people have a very great individuality, and the whole system of Socialism seeks to mould them in one class. The system of Socialism is not compatible with the characteristics of the Welsh people, nor will it be accepted by them as a whole. Many hon. Members will know the story of the reason why Socialism cannot work—because it is not needed in heaven and is already possessed in hell. It will not work in Wales; nor does the White Paper give any real guide to us that it ever will.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Mort: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White), and particularly to his comments relating to the appeal of Socialism to the Welsh people. I would urge him not to get too despondent about it, for he knows the Welsh people as well as I do. I can assure both the House and the hon. Gentleman that, judging by past tendencies, the Welsh people are showing the characteristics of their race in every respect, and, of course, the greatest example of it is found in the number of hon. Members they return continuously to this side of the House.
Personally, I am very pleased with the White Paper presented by the Government. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) has said that we are all in an opposition party now, and possibly there is an element of truth in that. I am not going to say that the White Paper is the last word, or the very zenith of the heights we have been striving to reach. I criticise the White Paper more for what is left out of it than for what is put into it. I believe there are serious omissions from it, with which I am personally concerned, and it is a particular aspect of that case that I wish to present to the House.
At last, this Government have gone in for the provision of much needed facilities in a big way by the development of the steel plant at Margam. We look to the

Government to give us the picture, whether dark or bright, of the position in Wales, whereby we can assess correctly the difficulties we have to meet. Now, at least, there has been a diagnosis. Possibly, the patient is not making very good progress, and so we look round to see if we can be satisfied that the diagnosis is correct and also to formulate ideas with which to tackle the particular problem, though I do not suppose many people in Wales will consider that one day per year is an adequate time in which to discuss Welsh affairs. But at least, today we can discuss the problems that face our country.
I wish to raise one particular problem which I have raised before, and I make no apology for doing so. My right hon. Friend referred to it in his opening speech. It is the problem of the redundancy that must occur in the steel and tinplate trade of South Wales. My right hon. Friend said that there "might be" redundancy, but there is no doubt about it. Considering the size of the problem which has to be faced, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke last referred to it, I am personally astonished at the easy pace—it is almost no pace at all—at which the Government are concerning themselves with this problem which must arise.
We have at Margam a great monument of engineering skill, and, when complete, it will be one of the finest plants in Wales if not in the whole world. It is a marvellous piece of work, and I feel proud that we as a nation have been able to create it. Some people thought that we were backward, yet we have been able to build this marvellous plant to supply the needs of this country. I should like to relate what one old tinplater told me; he was a worker-philosopher. I said to him, "What do you think about it?" and he replied, "It is wonderful, but it is no consolation if your scaffold is made of gold, when it is going to cut off your head." That is the attitude of the people there, and I want the House to believe that not a week that passes when I do not receive representations from people who live in areas which will become derelict when the Margam works become fully operative.
What is the fear in the hearts of these men? They have experienced this trouble


before, and they can visualise a time when they will be walking the streets, possibly dependent on the earnings of their sons or daughters. There are men who have taken a pride in contributing to the brightest spot in British industry—the steel and tinplate workers. They are now looking to the Government to give them some hope that this problem is being dealt with.
I know that it is not going to be sudden, and that it will not just drop from the heavens. There will be a process of time during which the smaller works will go on supplying the demand, but we know (that it is inevitable that, when the Margam works get into full development, there may be as many as 10,000 unemployed. That is what some people say, and, quite possibly, it will be so, because the Margam plant cannot absorb the labour that will be displaced, and that is the problem which I want this House to understand. The labour that will be employed in Margam is more mechanical; it is not like that operating in the tinplate trade, the cannibal side of the steel industry.
We have a right to make this request to the Government. What was the argument put forward when the coal redemption plant was moved from Swansea to Llanelly? There was no financial argument, because it cost more. There was no equipment argument, because there was better equipment and a better site in Swansea. The arguments then used by the Government to the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris), the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and myself were based on the sociological aspect. The Government were then prepared to brush aside the advice of the engineers. They said that we must concentrate on the sociological side. I want the Government to implement that policy and to apply it in this direction as well. The men who are making this contribution are entitled to some consideration, and I appeal to the Government tonight to open the iron curtain and to allow at least a chink of hope to come through so that the men who are making this wonderful contribution, economically and industrially, may have the hope that when the occasion arises, the Government will see that they get a fair and square deal.

5.22 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am not going to attempt to cover the wide area traversed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White), and perhaps I might say in that connection how glad we all are to see the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) attending our Debate. This is the first time in my memory, that we have had such a very distinguished representative of the Conservative Party on the Opposition Front Bench in a Debate on Welsh affairs. I hope it may be some evidence of a new interest in Wales and its affairs.
Neither am I going to follow the hon. Member for East Swansea (Mr. Mort) in the very important point which he has raised. I shall only refer to two matters, the first of which is the hydroelectric scheme for Wales. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House representing Welsh constituencies fully realise how vital it is that we should have an adequate supply of electricity for industrial and agricultural development in Wales, and for the provision of light in the villages where the need is so great.
For instance, in my own constituency of Anglesey, the great majority of the people are without light. I say that, of course, only in the material sense and not in the political sense. They need no further enlightenment on that score. Electricity schemes are proceeding in that county and in others, but only very slowly indeed. In this twentieth century it is really quite indefensible that great areas of our country should be without power and light, particularly when we compare our position with other countries quite as small as Wales. Therefore, it seems to me that it is our duty to consider with the utmost care, and without prejudice, the proposals of the British Electricity Authority.
At the same time, I am sure, hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree equally that it is our duty to see that our priceless heritage of natural beauty is not impaired. Judging the question from purely material considerations, our scenery is an economic asset from the point of view of the tourist industry. Without it, we should not attract the great numbers of people that we do to


enjoy the amenities of our countryside. Heaven knows, we have allowed lovely stretches of our countryside and of our sea coast to be defaced in our day, and that without protest. We have too often been silent witnesses, to our eternal shame, of vandalism in Wales. This, I believe, is because in the past we have been too ready to think that all development is good. That is a mistake, and certain areas of South Wales, unfortunately, bear the most hideous testimony to hasty, ill-considered and gready development. I fear that we shall never be able to repair those ravages. Let us see that that sort of thing is not perpetrated on in other parts of the Principality. We ought to proceed in this matter with a deep sense of our responsibilities, not only to the present, but to the future.
I understand that six proposals have been made by the British Electricity Authority. The hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs referred to the proposal to erect a power station right in the middle of the Pass of Aberglaslyn. That proposal, I understand, also involves the diverting and the drying up of the river bed near that Pass. It is one of the loveliest bits of country, not only in all Wales, but in all Britain. I do not think the earth can show anything more fair. I should have thought that any Welshman or Welshwoman worth their salt would have revolted at a piece of sacrilege of that kind, and I hope that, whatever happens, that proposal will not be implemented.
I was very glad to hear the Minister of Fuel and Power say some time ago in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) that the Mersey Electricity Authority could not proceed without statutory powers, and that all local authorities would be fully consulted in due course. I am also glad to know that arrangements are to be made for representatives of Welsh constituencies in this House to meet the Minister himself to discuss the whole situation, so that we may be in full possession of the relative facts. We need a very great deal more information than we have today. There are the wildest rumours going round Wales at the present time.
We are told, for instance, that there are going to be conrete-lined canals

large enough to take a barge, that these will encircle the mountains, and that we are going to have power houses six feet to the eaves, surrounded by storage gear and transformers, and that staff bungalows will spring up like mushroom towns in these lovely valleys. None of us knows whether these rumours are unfounded or not, but it is our business to find out.
I wish to pursue another point made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs. Who is going to benefit from these works? Are they being undertaken merely to give a supply of electricity to North Wales'? We do not want to be selfish, but, quite honestly, North Wales has provided water supplies for a great many English cities. Are we now to provide power as well for English cities? I think we should know. We have been told that these schemes will save coal—that if we harness the waters of North Wales we shall save about 374,000 tons of coal a year, which is rather less than half a day's output from our mines.
It will be some years before these schemes are put into operation; we do not know how long. Some people say 20 years, but, at any rate, it will be a good many years. Shall we then be so anxious to save coal as we are today because by then other sources will have come back into full play again. We may also have other sources of new power by that time. All these are perfectly reasonable considerations which, I submit, must be taken into very serious consideration before we embark on this great new scheme. After all, we in our generation are the trustees of our national heritage and we must see that we do not betray that trust.
I have one other matter to raise, and that concerns that august body, the Council of Wales. The Minister of National Insurance mentioned in his speech this afternoon a great many of the problems with which we in the Principality are faced. He spoke of the decline in unemployment. We rejoice in that decline, but we must remember that the rate of unemployment in Wales is still higher than it is in the rest of Great Britain. There are still pockets of unemployment. I have one or two black areas in my constituency, principally in Amlwch and Llangefni. In that connection I should like to ask how many workers—and this is important if we are discussing


unemployment in Wales—have left Wales in the last four years, and how many foreign workers, including Irish workers, "have been brought into Wales not only in the last four years but what the influx has been in recent months? I hope very much that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will give us some information on this point when he comes to reply.
All these are problems which, if the Council of Wales is worth having at all, should be considered by it. We should like to know what it is doing. We had a sketchy reference to its activities by the Minister of National Insurance. This body was formed, I think, 10 months ago. Many of us criticised the set-up in the Debate last year. We criticised it because we said it was not only inadequate but totally irrelevant to the problems of Wales. I do not criticise its personnel. I have the greatest respect and admiration for many of the members of that council. Tt is not their fault, but it is the responsibility of the Government. I very much wonder what the Lord President, who was instrumental in setting up this body, would have said if a spineless body of this kind had been offered for the government of London. Would not his Cockney spirit have revolted? I think well enough of his metropolitan patriotism to feel that it would have done.
An appeal was made to us in that Debate to treat the council gently and to give it a chance to show what it could do. As I say, it has been there for 10 months; it was set up in the New Year. It started off in a blaze of glory, if I may so describe the Lord President's meteoric visit to Wales on that occasion. It has met, I think, not three times as my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) said earlier in the Debate, but four times; that includes, which perhaps he did not do, the inaugural meeting which quite rightly—I do not complain about that—consisted mostly of a fanfare of trumpets. But what has it accomplished? We do not expect it to achieve miracles, but we do expect it to have done something in 10 months.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the council has set up some sub-committees It has set up a sub-committee to consider

the repopulation of the rural areas—a vital problem. In Anglesey the death rate exceeds the birth rate. That is a very serious problem which needs a great deal of consideration. There is going to be a sub-committee on unemployment and economic problems; a third is to consider marginal land. All are absolutely vital problems which cannot be considered adequately in a few occasional meetings with inadequate staffs.
I should like to ask how often these sub-committees are to meet. I should like to know what staff they have at their disposal. The Minister of National Insurance told us this afternoon that they could make the fullest use of the Civil Service, But this is a whole-time job, if these sub-committees are going to do any good at all. It is not just going to be something which the Civil Service, however devoted they may be, can do in a few hours or in a little leisure time left over from the very hard work that they have to do already.
This is not an ordinary council, it is not just another committee, so the Government tell us. This is the Government's answer to the demand in Wales for a greater measure of autonomy. May we know a little more of its activities? My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales expressed his dissatisfaction with the White Paper. If the White Paper is a measure of the effect that the council has had on Welsh problems, then it has not caused a ripple on the waters. The Lord President said in the Debate last year that it was going to do a good job for Wales. I hope that we shall hear from the Parliamentary Secretary two or three things, or one thing if he likes, in which the Council has really done a good job of work for Wales.
A great Welshman and Liberal, Tom Ellis, said many years ago:
We demand for Wales the power of initiative and decision in our own affairs.
This council which has been set up by the Government provide neither the power of initiative nor of decision. I believe that the only thing that the Government have achieved in setting up this council is to drive a great many people to the conviction that there can be no half-way house for Wales and that we must have the management of our own affairs in our own hands.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I have considered very carefully this White Paper and, having considered it, I must say that the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) has tried successfully to side-track the Debate. Anyone Who goes through this White Paper impartially and objectively, cannot but be impressed by the fact that here is a record of the rejuvenation of Wales. Every item—the production of coal and steel, agriculture, transport and docks—tells an objective story of progress in every industry in South Wales. Those industries were decaying—if I may be pardoned for saying so—during past Liberal and Conservative Governments—

Lady Megan Lloyd George: They were not decaying under the Liberals: under the Conservatives, yes.

Mr. Cove: They were decaying not because there had been an invasion of the beauty spots but because there was the corroding influence of mass unemployment amongst our people. I am, therefore, proud, in what will perhaps be the last Debate on Wales in this House to pay my tribute to the Government for what they have achieved in the realm of economics in Wales. It is all very well, if I may say so with respect, to talk about the cultural life of Wales. What Welshman or even half-Welshman would deny that the cultural life should be developed and nurtured? But one cannot build a cultural Wales on the quicksands of unemployment.
I am impressed by what the Government have achieved in having resuscitated and revived the old, major industries of Wales, in having provided a great diversity of industries in Wales—for the social consequences of the revival of the old industries and of the growth of the diversified industries are absolutely tremendous. The whole social, family and cultural life of Wales depended upon that. I ask the noble Lady to cast her mind back to the days of the white slave traffic of the young women of Wales. They were brought to London. They were brought away from the villages of Wales. Why? Because they could not find work in Wales.
Today we have in this White Paper a record of employment in Wales which has rehabilitated the family. It has found

work for thousands and tens of thousands of young women whose moral life must be degraded in a period of unemployment; I say, therefore, that from the social, moral and family point of view in Wales this Government, by what it has achieved in the realm of employment, has rehabilitated the whole cultural and national life of the Principality. In the past 20 years I have not been afraid to walk into the Lobby against Governments time after time, but I cannot oppose this Government when I have a picture in my mind of the former conditions in my constituency, in Merthyr in the Rhondda Valley, when shops were closed in street after street, with cobwebs hanging from the windows. What is more dreary in an urban area than unoccupied shops?
I remember women and children without shoes on their feet; I remember in my constituency—and this is a literal fact—women and children keeping themselves warm in bed with newspapers. They did not have enough capital left out of the unemployment benefit of 22s. for a man and his wife, with 2s. for the child, to buy a frying pan when it needed renewal, and much less did they have clothes to keep themselves warm. The women in my constituency now show signs of health and vigour and—I hope I shall not be misunderstood—proud respectability; and I say, therefore, that the Government have every reason to be proud and satisfied with the achievements of today.
One of my hon. Friends said he would like to know the figures of the numbers who had gone out of Wales in the inter-war period. He can get them here in this book. It is half a million—half a million decanted into England, not because an English Government was repressing Wales, but because of the corroding influence of unemployment. I have here the figures of the effect on the child population pf Wales—the children who were inevitably to be the future fathers and mothers of a virile Welsh race. I have the figures for the primary schools of Wales. What happened between 1919 and 1938? There was a drop of over 105,000 in the school pupils of Wales. They had gone to areas like Slough, Welwyn Garden City, Birmingham—I hope, from a political point of view, to civilise the English. Anyhow, they had gone out of Wales—gone,


as I keep emphasising, because of unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) talked about the ratio of teachers to the size of classes. He said that, according to the White Paper, the ratio was one teacher to every 23 children. In spite of the difficulties, there is no other country, not even Scotland and certainly not Northern Ireland, with such a good record. Northern Ireland was mentioned, but if we are to become like Northern Ireland we shall get many classes of 70. Under this Government, in the field of education we have in Britain and the British Isles the lowest number of pupils per teacher. We have more graduates in the elementary, primary and secondary schools than other countries. That shows to me quite clearly that in the field of education the Government have done well.
I should like to interpolate that I agree with what has been said about the emphasis on technical education. Why have we suffered from a lack of technical education in Wales? Why has there been an emphasis on the training of preachers and teachers? Not because there was a predisposition on the part of students to become teachers and preachers, but because there was no outlet in the hinterland of Welsh industry for the technically-trained person. I hope I have made this point clear, for I think it is of tremendous economic and social importance. With the extension of diversified industries in Wales, and with these diversified industries demanding more technical knowledge, there will come a new emphasis in the educational world on technical education.
Perhaps I may put it this way: the schools and colleges of Wales will respond to the Government's emphasis on the erection of diversified industries in Wales. I am glad to see the record in the White Paper of the proposals to increase the number of technical colleges and technical schools in Wales, and particularly in North Wales. In this respect North Wales has been very bad indeed. There is very much more I could say, but I see my hon. Friends looking at me.
The noble Lady has poured flowery scorn on the Welsh National Council. She said it was quite irrelevant to the problems of Wales. I completely and entirely

deny it. I challenge the Leader of the Liberal Party to get up and say that it is irrelevant.

Mr. Clement Davies: I hope to.

Mr. Cove: It is relevant in one respect. I have some recent figures relating to the poverty of Wales. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself has pointed out before now, the poverty of the rate resources in Wales. If hon. Members will look at the Ministry of Education Report for 1948—and I hope hon. Members have noticed these figures—they will see in Table 84 some very important figures. I am going to give only two. A penny rate for the whole of England would bring in £1,324,648, and the rate per £ is 58.9d. The product of 1d. rate in Wales—for the whole of Wales, mark you—is £49,641. These are official figures. The poundage rate is 85.6d.
It seems to me cruel, misleading, politically hypocritical to give to the Welsh people the idea that some alternative body can be formed in Wales, apart from the National Council, based on a rateable income that is there depicted in the official figures. It cannot be done. We have not the figures for Wales of Exchequer receipts, but we have got them for England, Wales and Scotland. Scotland pays into the national Exchequer—and Scotland has a population of about 5,000,000, and we have half of that—£182 million. The Scotsmen are robbing the English—getting more, I am afraid, out of the national Exchequer than they are putting in. Good luck to them.
The truth is that, having regard to the leaner financial resources in rates and taxes in Wales, this body is the only body that can consider all these factors directly related to Wales, having, as it has, the full apparatus—and if I am wrong the Government can correct me—of the Civil Service.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: No.

Mr. Cove: My hon. Friend says "No." I prefer to call her my hon. Friend than the hon. Lady. I have given a lot of attention to the proposal, and I repeat that, with the full Civil Service apparatus, the Council can consider all these major issues. I say quite definitely that when we go to the Election in Wales the record of the Government will be such that we


shall triumph as a Labour Party overwhelmingly.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am sorry the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White) is not here, because one thing he said aroused my Celtic spirit. He complained that the Government were late in producing this document. I want to tell him that we are still waiting for his party's White Paper on Wales. I want to congratulate the Government on the production of this document. There is a good deal of sterile malice in some quarters about everything and anything the Government do, and it is time that the Welsh people were told the full story of the achievements of social democracy in Wales for the Welsh people.
It is a valuable document giving the facts and figures which enable us to frame an overall picture of the state of the nation. Of course, it can be improved as a document, but it is the first document of the sort any Government has brought forward. Anything like an annual statement on the state of the Welsh nation no other Government have tried to produce. Probably having regard to their record in Wales they never dared to. It is a usual criticism—and I may indulge in it later myself—that the White Paper leaves out this or that particular. So far as I am concerned, the main deficiency of the White Paper is that it does not give the comparative figures for the pre-war years in Wales, when Wales was at the mercy of the parties opposite. What a contrast that would reveal.
Let us take employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) was quite right in saying that it is useless to expect a national cultural and social life in Wales without a foundation of economic security. We have today some 36,000 people unemployed—that is 36,000 too many—but the average of unemployment in Wales during the 15 years preceding the war was 167,000; and at its peak, in August, 1932, it reached the almost incredible figure of 244,000—a quarter of a million unemployed in a nation of 2,500,000.
Now it is perfectly clear to some of us that if those pre-war policies had been allowed to continue, they would have sealed the fate of the Welsh nation as such, and we should have been left with

nothing to preserve except our scenery. It is too often assumed that those vast armies of unemployed were to be found only in the industrial south. The truth is—

6.0 p.m.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned —

SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Profits Tax Act, 1949.
2. Overseas Resources Development Act, 1949.
3. House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949.
4. Civil Aviation Act, 1949.
5. Representation of the People Act, 1949.
6. New Forest Act, 1949.
7. Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, 1949.
8. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1949.
9. Iron and Steel Act, 1949.
10. Nurses Act, 1949.
11. Coast Protection Act, 1949.
12. Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949.
13. Marriage Act, 1949.
14. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1949.
15. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1949.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As I was saying, it is too often assumed that these vast armies of unemployed in the Principality were to be found only in the industrial south. The truth is that there was also, for a great many years, widespread unemployment and poverty in the rural areas. It is upon the future of the countryside in Wales that I wish mostly to speak this evening. After all, it is there that the well springs of our language and prescriptively Welsh way of life are to be found, and the survival of these


things as the hon. Member for Aberavon so eloquently pointed out, depends on the prosperity of these rural areas and of those who live and labour there.
To a far greater degree than in England or in Scotland, the Welsh farmer has to contend with land which is marginal, or even worse. A very high proportion of our farms are hill farms. It is true that their lot has improved in recent years, but it still needs to be further improved. Because he has to farm on such a narrow margin, the hill farmer has little or no capital to devote to the improvement of his holding. It is perfectly true that the White Paper shows an encouraging increase in the number of hill farmers who are applying for various types of grants, but I am sure also that there must be quite a large number who are holding back from applying because they cannot provide even 50 per cent. of the total cost of improvement schemes.
I think that the position ought to be reviewed to see if some further assistance can be made available to these intrepid people who constitute such a valuable element in the social and cultural pattern of Welsh life. Secondly, if we are to maintain a sufficient proportion of our people on the land, I think we shall have to direct attention to the problem of creating new holdings in Wales. One of the most encouraging features in the Welsh countryside today is the number of farmers' sons and farm workers who are anxious to obtain holdings of their own, but prosperity is such that tenancies are not becoming vacant at all rapidly and the queue of would-be farmers on their own account is dishearteningly long.
I believe there are two sources of new land in Wales. The first, which is subject, of course, to the investment of considerable new capital, is the marginal land. There is a good deal of that land which might with new capital be put into use. The second is that some of the land now held by the Service Departments could very well be released for the creation of new holdings. We were told in the White Paper that at present the Service Departments hold 53,000 acres. They have climbed down from the preposterous demand of three years ago of 500,000 acres of Welsh land, but 53,000 acres is still too much, because it is proportionately a higher demand upon Wales

than upon England or Scotland, and there should be equality in this matter.
Then again, like the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), I want to see a new urgency in pressing forward water and sanitation schemes in the Welsh countryside. I have some figures here of the needs, and of the progress which has been made since the war. I feel fairly hopeful of the future in this respect because, as the new policy of equalisation of rates proceeds, some of our poorer Welsh counties ought in time to catch up with their richer fellows. The noble Lady also referred to certain proposals for hydro-electrification in North Wales. I have taken the view that these proposals ought not to be condemned outright.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Hear, hear.

Mr. Roberts: I am glad to hear that the noble Lady agrees with that general view, and I join with her in asking that the fullest possible information should be made available to the Parliamentary representatives of Wales, to the local authorities, and, of course, to the amenity societies who are quite rightly concerned. At the moment, I do not think that we have the full facts, and subject to an examination of the fullest facts about these schemes, I am frankly prepared to look with sympathy upon the use of North Wales natural water power in this direction.
Let me support the plea that in any scheme which we may have in North Wales, we should secure that the needs of the local population are met, which, I think, is a reasonable proviso, and also that our natural scenic amenities are reasonably safeguarded. While I am on this subject of rural life in Wales, may I pay a compliment to the work of the Welsh Department of the Ministry of Education, particularly in regard to their action in restraining some of our local authorities in Wales who have been a little bit too previous in closing village schools. There is no surer way of helping rural depopulation than to close village schools.
I turn for a moment to another rural industry in Wales—the slate industry. I am glad to see that a section of the White Paper is devoted to it, but I wish that the information could have been a little


fuller. The position in the slate industry is this: We have two or three large-scale workings which appear to be in no need of outside assistance, but we also have a relatively large number of smaller quarries which are finding it difficult to finance the cost of clearance. This is clearance which ought to have been entered upon during the war years, but which was neglected patriotically because the Government of the day asked them to concentrate upon the production of roofing slates and to leave clearance alone. There is a case here for generous assistance; indeed, I would call it a case for compensation. I hope that very soon the Ministry of Works will do something in respect of the proposals already made to them both by management and men in the industry.
I should be loath to conclude any contribution of mine to a Debate on Welsh affairs without touching upon what we call the constitutional issue. I intended to join battle with the hon. Member for Anglesey on the subject of the Council for Wales, but time is running short and I will content myself with saying just this. The council got going on 20th May of this year. Surely it is a little premature to get up in this House and demand that the council should show substantial results? I think it will be good time to examine what it has done next year.
Leaving the question of the council on one side, I conclude by saying that there is a problem of constitutional status in Wales which will have to be faced. Up to now, our people have been preoccupied and often obsessed with the struggle for subsistence, but I believe that our primary task, as a social democracy in Wales, is nearing its completion, that is to say, laying the foundations of our economic life. When that task is completed, as I am certain it will be if social democracy remains the Government of this country, there will come a time when the minds of our people will be free to consider other questions, and among them will be the question of a progressive autonomy for the Welsh people, possibly side by side with the Scots and even the English.

6.24 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: The House has listened with considerable attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts). I should like to endorse what he said in his concluding remarks on the constitu-

tional position in Wales. The Minister of National Insurance made a very able review of the situation. I really got more information and light on one or two matters from him than from the White Paper itself. I felt, however, that he confined his attention too much to economic matters, instead of dealing with other issues that are arising in Wales. After all, it is not all a matter of economics. We had a little gesture today from the Gallery, which is an indication that Wales is not a happy nation at the present time.
I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that, economically, the situation in Wales has considerably improved in the last few years. No one will deny that, but we are living in a post-war era, in a world of scarcity, when naturally all avenues of employment are open, and time will show whether Wales will be able to bear its proportion of low employment when we come to a world glut of goods; the needs of the world will soon pass and we shall leave the sellers' market.
Reference has been made to the question of electrification of the rural areas. I have a matter to raise in this connection, which is of some consequence in my own county, the County of Denbigh, and I bring it forward as an illustration of how difficult it is to get electrification carried out. We have a village hall in a village called Trefnant. All they require in that village hall is heating for the winter. There is electricity in the hall at the present time. It is clear that this village hall, which is of immense benefit to the locality, will be useless during the winter if we are unable to get heating for it. The Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board have sent me a very courteous letter. It comes from their commercial officer, and it gives various reasons why the board cannot allow this village to have warmth for the winter at present.
The point I want to emphasise is that this board quoted for the work to be done, that is for the electrification and wiring of this hall for heating, and when a lower quotation came in from another source, namely, a private firm, the board were unable to sanction the work to be carried out. I should not like to accuse the board of discouraging private competition, but the fact remains that, having given a quotation for the work to be done and private enterprise having put in


a lower tender, the board felt unable to allow the work to be carried out. That is a matter which is causing some concern in parts of North Wales.
Now I come to a much more important matter, the attitude of certain English officials in Wales to the Welsh language. I take the case of forestry, which is a very important industry in Wales as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well. Surely it is not a qualification for a forester to be a master of the English language—at least, one would think not. Some of the foresters in Wales, some of the ablest men in the rural areas and uplands, are Welsh-speaking Welshmen, but that is not to say they are not very intelligent and educated men. I received a letter the other day from a forester telling me that he has spent his life in forestry and would like to go on with it, but that because he has not a good knowledge of the English language, be has been precluded from carrying out a school course in forestry in the County of Caernarvon and sitting for the examination.
There is a feeling among young foresters in Wales that the Forestry Commission and their committee in Wales have a rather anti-Welsh bias. I do not know whether there is any real evidence for that. I know the Chairman and some of the members of the Commission, and I should not like to accuse them of bias. But the feeling is there, and does not encourage some of these very desirable recruits to the industry. When I sent to the Chairman of the Commission the letter from this young man; asking whether he could take his examination in the Welsh language, it was found inconvenient to accede to his request. Why cannot a forester in Wales pass an examination in his own language? I ask the Government to look into this matter, because this valuable materia!—if I may call these young men "material "—can make a fine contribution to forestry in Wales.
Now I wish to read a letter to the House to show the attitude of some English officials in Wales towards the Welsh language. I am very sorry to say that it relates to a member of my own profession, but I am still going to read it to the House. Two years ago I would not have raised it but, of

course, medicine was not then State controlled. It was a private profession; now it is a State profession. In this case the Welsh Regional Hospital Board is the authority. My constituent writes:
I had occasion to take my little daughter, aged two, to an orthopaedic clinic at Colwyn Bay on Thursday, 25th inst. The surgeon asked certain relevant questions, and then, naturally, asked to see the child walk across the room. I had, of course, to tell her in Welsh what was expected of her. When this was over the surgeon turned to me and said 'Do you always speak Welsh to your child?' I answered that most certainly I did, whereupon he proceeded to denounce me in front of all the other patients: did I know I was doing the child harm? She would always be slow thinking. She would have to think in Welsh and then translate into English every utterance. In his hospital experience he had found Welsh-speaking nurses always slow thinking, owing to having to translate their thoughts.
Having continued this tirade for a time, I brought the conversation to a close by telling him that I found my knowledge of Welsh no burden to carry along with me through life, and that it had not hampered me or ruined my career as I possessed an arts degree of the University of Wales. I am bringing this to your notice in order that if at all possible you will bring the matter up in the House of Commons. Is it right to send a man so opposed to all things Welsh to treat patients from an area such as Llanwrst"—
it is a rural, Welsh town in my constituency—
where almost all the inhabitants are Welsh speaking and Welsh is the first language in school? Surely, as an orthopaedic surgeon, he should have confined his remarks to medical matters whereas, in actual fact, I was told nothing about my child's complaint.

Mr. W. R. Williams: What would the B.M.A. say about non-professional conduct?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am sorry that the Minister of Health is not here.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that there is a Welsh Hospitals Board, which is responsible for hospitals in Wales.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: This surgeon comes under the Regional Hospital Board for Wales. He is not a Welshman. I have his name here, but I do not want to read it in the House although I will give it to the Minister.
I know a large number of English officials in Wales. Some are personal friends of mine. There are quite a number coming into Wales now under the Health Service scheme, many of them from England,


from the borders. If these gentlemen cannot at least master the Welsh language as a compliment to our nation—if they went tc Belgium, Luxembourg or Roumania they would have to learn the language of those countries if they wished to work in them—they might have the courtesy, at all events, to respect the sentiments and aspirations of the Welsh people. I have had several cases brought to my attention in recent months, and I thought it was my duty to put this case before the House tonight. Wales will not tolerate this attitude on the part of the officials, no matter who they are, and I trust the Government will issue an edict to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Richards: I am one of those who are prepared to congratulate the Government on the production of this interesting White Paper. There have been some criticisms of it—and it is not difficult to criticise a White Paper of this kind which, after all, deals with so many questions—but the satisfactory thing is that this is the fullest and most detailed White Paper of the series which we have had over four years.
I think it is well that the figures given in the White Paper should be compared with those for the United Kingdom as a whole, so that we may have a comparatively complete picture of the economic life of our little country. Let us not forget that Wales suffered during the years of depression almost more than any other part of the United Kingdom. It was a particularly tragic experience to tramp the streets of South Wales and to find many shops and houses empty and men standing at street corners, or to find that the men had left the district altogether. Such experiences were eating into the vitals of the nation, and we on this side of the House are proud that something has. been done to redeem the position.
If we study the White Paper, it is obvious that we are still suffering from serious disabilities which ought to be carefully considered by the Government. One is the decline in the population of Wales, which the White Paper does not bring out clearly. Appendix I shows an overall decline of 300 people, but that is not the whole story by any means. The table on page 60 shows that the urban population, as in so many other countries,

improved during the last six months of 1948 by 2,760, whereas the rural population declined by 3,070—a decline of just over 300. But not only did we lose 300' people; we also lost the increase in the population of the industrial areas. Consequently, we ought to combine the two figures of the increase in the urban population and the decline in the rural population, which give an overall decline not of 300 but of some 6,000.
That is a very considerable figure. This question of rural depopulation is one which has been raised by speakers who have preceded me. It is rather ridiculous to draw conclusions from a period of only six months, and I would suggest that when a new White Paper is produced it should cover at least the four years for which we have already had White Papers. We cannot make any definite comparison by taking only the six last months of 1948, but the decline during 1948 amounts to the very considerable figure of 6,000 persons.
Not only ought we to have the figures for a longer period, but I should like to see some comparable figures from English counties that are more or less the same as ours. For example, there is the Lake District, which is not unlike North Wales. It would be interesting to see whether a similar decline is taking place there. The increase in the urban areas is particularly interesting. Cardiff's population increased by 1,500 people, Swansea's by 800 and Newport's by 500. Those are considerable increases. In the rural areas, on the other hand, the position is not by any means uniform over all the rural counties. Only one rural county registers an increase, and that is Cardigan, where there were 28 more people at the end of the six months than at the beginning. But Radnor lost 28 people, so we are practically where we were.
If we turn to the other counties, we find that Anglesey lost 360 people, but even there it is not easy to draw the conclusion that all these were rural people. There is the busy town of Holyhead, and it may be that the loss was not in the rural areas but in the industrial part of Holyhead. Caernarvonshire lost 1,577 people, but, again, Caernarvon is by no means a rural county. I see the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White) in his place, and I know he will bear me out when I say that Caernarvonshire


is not particularly a rural area at all. There is considerable industry there, and, in addition, there is not only the slate industry but granite quarries. A large part of the county is engaged in Holyhead traffic. Caernarvonshire is not typically rural, and the serious decline in the county's population requires some looking into from several points of view. Glamorgan is looked on as the most highly industrialised county in Wales, and it lost 900 people in that short space of time. Carmarthen, which is also largely industrial, lost 210. Merioneth lost 186 and Montgomery 184—two typical rural counties—while Denbigh and Flint, where there is a combination of agriculture and industry, both gained about 200.
What conclusion can be drawn from these figures? The conclusion that is often drawn is that the rural parts of Wales are losing their population to the industrial parts, but it is a curious thing that this is a world-wide phenomenon. It is to be found in America, the land of opportunity, of new and vigorous agriculture, just as much as it is to be found in this country. In no fewer than 22 States in the Union the majority of people live in urban areas. It is rapidly changing from a rural country into an industrial country.
So it seems to me that, without a great deal of further inquiry, we cannot draw any conclusions with regard to Wales which will not apply to other countries as well. The curious thing, so I am told, is that the progress of mechanisation in America is driving people away from the land. We have been hoping that more mechanisation here would lead people back to the land. I am informed that in America many of the farmers, particularly in winter time, leave their holdings and go down to the coast at California. They return to their farms in May, do their ploughing pretty quickly, finish their harvest by the end of September, and go back again. There is a curious rural de-population problem of that kind in America, which is accentuated by the ease with which they can cultivate their land in a short time.
One or two industries referred to in in this White Paper have a bearing upon the rural life of Wales. One of these is agriculture, which is most important, and the second is forestry. In the figures

given in the White Paper I see none of the number of people who are employed in agriculture, and it is particularly difficult for us to discuss this question without figures referring to the two classes, farmers and labourers. Are more people being employed on the land today than was the case before the war, or is the number less? Has the tractor, which has become very general by this time, driven people away from the land, or is it attracting more people to undertake agriculture? Is agriculture providing the same amount of employment as it did in the old days before the tractor was introduced?
I find in this White Paper, as in many other White Papers a similar character, a very glowing paragraph referring to the remarkable increase in milk production in Wales. This very remarkable increase is one of over 70 per cent. in 10 years. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the establishment of the Milk Marketing Board, which has brought prosperity to so many small farms, is not really undermining the agricultural economy of the country. For example, if we look at the certificates which are given in connection with the bulls that are kept for breeding, we find a very serious decline among the Herefords, the Shorthorns and the Welsh Black cattle. Wales is, after all, primarily a breeding country. I am wondering whether this mixture of Friesians, Jerseys and Ayrshires will not undermine the quality of the cattle that are bred on our countryside.
This is an important question. There is another aspect of it. There is a tremendous increase in the amount of milk produced, but that milk is no longer drunk in our countryside. It is one of the most difficult things imaginable in the countryside to get a drink either of fresh milk or of buttermilk. I am certain that, in a very short time, our population will suffer in many respects from malnutrition because of that fact. Can we do anything about it? The Ministry of Agriculture are sympathetic in their attitude towards this question, and are aware of the necessity to return to more breeding of healthy cattle and to get rid to some extent of the very unhealthy competition in producing milk.
Wherever we go in the country districts of Wales we see lorries carrying


milk, not to the villages or to the small towns, but right away to the factory and to the big English towns. We do not grudge the English people their milk and we are proud of the fact that the Milk Marketing Board organisation has resulted in improved conditions for many classes in the countryside, but I suggest that some plan should be worked out for reserving to the people who work on the land a certain proportion of the milk that they produce.
I turn to the subject of forestry. I know that some of my hon. Friends intend, if they are fortunate enough to be called upon to speak, to touch upon this question. I am sorry to see the emphasis which is laid upon acreage. We are much more concerned about men than about acres. I was very glad to hear my colleague the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) say that there is a complete lack of sympathy on the part of the Forestry Commission with Welsh ideals and the spirit of Wales. It seems to me that the Forestry Commission have never integrated themselves into the life of the rural community of Wales. Many of the forestry workers are Welsh, but the superintendents are generally English. There is a lack of sympathy which makes me feel that we have very little for which to thank the Forestry Commission in regard to whatever they may have done in Wales.
I should like to say one word about the electrical projects in North Wales. There is only one Snowdonia in the world. I am particularly concerned, as was the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), that nothing should be done in a hurry to detract from the extraordinary beauty of the country in North Wales. I have read the suggestions that have been made for the extension of electricity projects for utilising the rivers and the lakes of North Wales.
I am convinced that if this piece of vandalism is allowed to go on, it will create an entirely different North Wales from the one that we know at present. It is our duty to preserve it as a gift of the gods for those who come after us, that they may enjoy it, too. This project is supposed to be costing about £20 million. I suggest that there will be no commensurate return for the outlay. We are told that the scheme will take 15 years to complete. I hope it will never

be begun. It would be a great tragedy, the greatest tragedy that has ever happened in the history of Wales, if this plan were proceeded with. Before it is, I hope that we shall have many opportunities of criticising it and, if possible, of defeating it.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate. It is difficult to speak cogently in such a Debate, because it is impossible to cover the whole range of Welsh problems in a single day, and as a result the Debate tends to lack any shape or form. Indeed, if the Debate were to be effective, we should need the whole of the Cabinet to be on the Government Front Bench, but that would probably be too much to expect in a single day. I agree very much with the remarks made by the present Minister of Health, when he spoke in the Welsh Debate on 17th October, 1944, that, as a means of directing public attention upon particularly Welsh problems, the Welsh Day is a farce.
I felt I had to intervene because of a passage in the speech of the Minister of National Insurance, on the question of the co-ordination of Ministerial and Departmental activity in Wales. We have here evidence that there is still lack of co-ordination, amounting to administrative inefficiency, even at the highest level. I have given notice of this matter to the President of the Board of Trade, and he has been courteous enough to discuss it with me since, but I must raise the point here because it is important to my constituency. The House will be aware that one of the great efforts in my Division has been to establish a factory at Blaenau Ffestiniog for those unable to work in other industries. When that factory is finally established, with the assistance of the Government, no one will be more ready than I shall be to give to the Government their proper share of the credit.
The Minister said that the Treasury had approved a loan to the Ffestiniog local authority and that the local authority might now go ahead. The impression might be gained from that remark that all is now perfect, that the Government and the local authority understand each other, and that the Government say go ahead, in every sense,


to the local authority. But that is not so. When the cuts in capital expenditure were announced in this House I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade and asked what the effect of the cuts might be upon the project to erect the factory. The people of this part of the country have for years, not just since 1945, sought some alternative employment to the slate industry for those unable to work in the slate mines. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade replied, on 15th November, saying that the cuts would not affect this projected factory, but he concluded his letter by saying:
You probably know that the Ffestiniog Urban District Council have refused to accept a loan for this purpose on the terms upon which the Treasury have offered it.
I was very surprised indeed to hear that the council, which had been yearning for the factory, had turned down the loan. I at once made inquiries and I found that on 12th July this year the local council had written to the Treasury raising a query about the terms of interest. The fact is that they are still waiting a reply to that letter five months ago. It is in those circumstances that the Board of Trade tell me that the council have refused the loan and that the Minister, in yet another inconsistency, tells the House that the Treasury have approved the loan and that the local authority may go ahead. It is an instance to show that there is still a lack of efficiency and co-ordination in Government Departments in relation to Wales.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): It will be within the recollection of the House that when my right hon. Friend was talking about this he was talking about two authorities. He said in respect of these two authorities that loans had been granted. I should like to clarify the position. I understand that the Gwyrfai Rural District Council has accepted the loan and started work but that the Ffestiniog Council object to the terms, and the position is that the Treasury are at present considering modifications in favour of the local authority. When my right hon. Friend said that the local authorities may now proceed, I think he was correct in that I believe the Ffestiniog local authority is in a position to go on with the practical work just as the other authority is. As the

point has been raised I will certainly see that it is considered. I believe that what my right hon. Friend said is correct, but it requires further amplification.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, so far as it goes. Perhaps he will look into it as a matter of urgency in view of the misunderstanding which has arisen. I am sure he will agree—his former experience at the Ministry of Health will tell him—that a local authority which goes on with a project before receiving Government approval for the expenditure would be doing a very foolish thing.
I want to refer to another aspect of coordination. I referred just now to co-ordination for administrative efficiency, but an even more important co-ordination is that of policy. That is particularly important to those of us who are concerned with the vital problem of rural Wales. There is a very great need at present for co-ordination between all the Government Departments which are seeking to use land in Wales. There are many claimants. There are the claims of agriculture, the Forestry Commission, military camps and hydro-electricity authorities. There seems to be very little sitting round the table in conference and co-ordination of all those demands. One by one these Departments are eating into the rural areas where the life of Wales flourishes.
No impartial observer would deny that, economically at least, the position of industrial Wales is healthier than it was in the middle '30's or the years between the wars, but to say that we are satisfied is quite another thing. There are still immense problems facing Wales. They are special problems of our own. They may be similar to English problems but it must be remembered that in that part of the United Kingdom there flourishes a distinct way of life. We do not say it is a better one but we say that it is different.
We believe that preservation of that way of life will enrich the pattern of European civilisation. We must, of course, give it an economic foundation, but we say that we can never build economically in the best possible way, nor can we ensure the future of that way of life, until we have the power effectively to control our own Welsh affairs. This has been recognised and preached in this House and in all quarters at least since the beginning


of the century. It was a point made by Mr. Asquith when introducing the Irish Home Rule Bill in April, 1912. In the Welsh Debate on 17th October, 1944, the present Minister of National Insurance used these words, and with this I conclude:
I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) expressing a view which I share completely; that is, that the time has come when the whole process of legislation and of administration in this country ought to be looked at, because I think devolution will be essential for the proper working of democracy in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 2314.]

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: I fear that several of the speeches delivered here today will, when read, savour of a pre-election estimate of how hon. Members will fare. They strike the attitude which hon. Members assume that they will have to strike when the General Election comes. I am not concerned about that aspect, nor do I propose to waste a moment in dwelling unnecessarily upon the achievements of the Government because they ought to speak for themselves. I am concerned with the problems about which my division is concerned, problems which still remain to be tackled and upon which the Government are open to grave criticism. I will quote a paragraph of the White Paper as an example of where hon. Members can justly draw attention to its inadequacy. Describing the position with regard to Grenfell factories and linking them with standard factories, paragraph 81 gives the impression that both sets of factories are in precisely the same position.
The Rhondda Valley has figured to a far greater degree, in suffering and depression over the last 20 years, than any other part of Wales, and it is still suffering to a greater degree than any other part of Wales, and yet deaf ears are still turned to our plea for effective steps to solve our difficulties. At present we have more than 3,500 unemployed. That means 3½ per cent. of the total population unemployed. We compare With the unemployment figures in England on an insurable basis, but Wales stands even higher on a population basis. Nearly 1,000 of the 3,500 unemployed are women, and of the remainder two-thirds are disabled men. The term "disabled" is used in such a loose

manner in Government Reports as to lose all meaning. Sometimes they talk about the "disablement register." Then they talk about men who require sheltered occupation. What in the wide world do they mean? One term means one thing, the other term means something entirely different.
In this connection there is a reference to the efforts of the Grenfell factories and to the Remploy programme to solve these problems. The Minister of National Insurance makes the position worse than it is in the White Paper. The White Paper says that six out of ten factories have been allotted, the Minister says that five have been allotted and five remain idle. This great scheme was designed to deal with disabled men throughout Wales, yet there are 12,000 men tonight waiting for a job who have been waiting for years and will, I fear, have to wait for years again. Thousands of these men will go out through the registrar of births and deaths and not through the Grenfell factories.
The programme of the Government was to put Grenfell factories in areas where no industrialist would go without inducement. If that was the approach of the Government, it is no wonder that they have failed. I remember very well that in 1935, when the Trading Estates were commenced at Treforest, it was admitted that some inducement would be required to bring industrialists even there. Think of dragging them to the ends of those valleys, and particularly to Grenfell factories, which are expected to take 50 per cent. of the disabled men.
Do the Government expect any one to take a Grenfell factory knowing beforehand that for every one healthy man they must take one disabled? That is a tremendous handicap for any industrialist to contemplate, even in the most favourably situated place in Britain. That is the fact we are up against, and it is no wonder that the Grenfell scheme has failed. The Remploy factories were intended to deal with the more grievously disabled section of these people. They are doing it. There is one such factory operating in my division and it is doing magnificent work, but the number of such factories is grievously inadequate to deal with the number of men waiting to go into them.
I want to say something else about the Grenfell scheme because it relates to another problem in my area. Why are the


Grenfell and other factories idle at this moment? They are idle because there are no houses for the industrialists to live in when they go there. This explanation has been given over and over again for years. Many an industrialist has come to the Rhondda Valley, has inspected these factories, has found them everything they desire, but there is no house available for any executive working for the industrialist. We have asked the Board of Trade over and over again, "Will you build houses at the same time as you build your factories?" There is no response, and tonight this unemployment problem exists in the Rhondda because no provision has been made effectively to use the factories that are there. How long will it take the Board of Trade to face up to this problem?
The Government need to be told quite bluntly where they fail. I do not believe in lavishing unnecessary plaudits upon the Government for what they have done. I do not believe in having inquests on victories. I hold inquests on failures. It is much more valuable for the people that it should be so. The grave problem in Rhondda is twofold: the existence of unemployment side by side with unused factories and lack of housing. That mining community is the worst housed community in Britain this night. Hundreds of miners and other industrial workers tonight have no safe roof over their heads. Whole families are living in one room. Adult young men and women are sleeping in the same bedroom as their parents, and not in ones and twos. I am not exaggerating; I am telling a real, grave, human story. Where is the drive and energy on these social problems? I will close in the time allotted to me but I wish I had a half hour in which to try to carry conviction to the minds of those people in authority who have the opportunity but have not the drive to solve these problems.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. John Evans: I will not follow the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) in his violent denunciation. I congratulate the Government upon this White Paper, which shows a remarkable record of achievement during a time when there were tremendous difficulties to overcome, not merely in this country but also abroad.

It is because I think we should appreciate the tremendous achievements of the Government during this hard period that I pay this tribute.
In the introductory paragraphs of the White Paper there is reference to the recently appointed Council for Wales. We have heard some rather caustic remarks by hon. Members, particularly those on the opposite benches, of the nature and set-up of that council. I welcome the council. It has a tremendous job to do. Also, I rather like its constitution. It means that we have on it representatives from the local government bodies, cultural bodies and educational authorities. It may do much good in co-ordinating activities throughout Wales, and I am looking forward to some good results. There are many loose ends which the council may be able to gather together.
I had thought of dealing with life in the rural communities of Wales, but so much has already been said on it, and the time at my disposal is so short, that I will leave that aspect for the time being. I hope that the council will provide the necessary drive to ensure that there is a link up with North and South Wales, thus giving some life to the counties of mid-Wales.
I should like to make a few remarks ' regarding industry. I have lived all my life in South Wales and spent many years working at the coalface. I lived there throughout those depressing years after the First World War. Let it be said to the credit of the Government that there is today no unemployment amongst able-bodied men. The hard core of the present unemployment in South Wales comprises people who are either infirm or have reached an age at which they cannot keep pace with the speed of modern industry. In the past these people, the infirm and the aged, were left merely to the tender mercies of public assistance committees and, before that, to the poor law.
Now, for the very first time, the Government recognise that it is their duty to provide suitable employment for these people, many of whom have been maimed in industry. It stands very much to the credit of the present Government that they are first ever to have accepted this responsibility. Of the 90,000 jobs of this nature which have been already provided, two-thirds are for men. There still


remains, however, a hard core of some 36,000 men and women for whom employment must eventually be found and who can be absorbed as additional factories are erected.
I want to make a suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who is now present on the Front Bench. Paragraph 86 of the Annual Report of the National Coal Board says that
The industry is badly off for good workshops in which mechanical and electrical equipment can be overhauled and repaired. The Board decided that new workshops were needed, and that most of them should serve a whole area. Standard layouts for workshops employing 100, 300 and 500 men were prepared … 
In my constituency there is a building which was used as a Royal Army Ordnance factory during the war and is now part of the Bridgend Trading Estate. Paragraph 85 of the White Paper says that
One of the larger buildings at Bridgend"—
in the trading estate—
is vacant … 
I know that vacant building, and I cannot understand why there is not some kind of liaison between the Board of Trade and the National Coal Board. The N.C.B. want workshops; the Board of Trade have the vacant buildings. Why cannot those buildings be occupied? Their conversion into workshops, in the heart of the South Wales coalfields, would be a godsend.
I am very glad indeed to have had the opportunity of paying my tribute to the work done by the Government through the various Departments, and I feel certain that when the next General Election takes place we shall see this good work continued for a further useful period.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I join with all sincerity in what most of my colleagues from Wales have said this afternoon about the work which the Government have done in that place called Wales. I am quite prepared to invite any hon. or right hon. Member from the benches opposite to visit my own and adjoining constituencies, and in so doing I would hope that they might have had the courage to have visited those constituen-

cies in the inter-war years. It is not necessary for us to spend a great deal of time in telling one another what the Government have done. One of my hon. Friends this afternoon said that the Government have constructed a great monument in the work they have done in many parts of Wales.
As has already been mentioned, however, our problems have not yet been entirely solved, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Main-waring) referred to the very serious and painful problem of finding employment for those who have the misfortune to be disabled. There is no justification for my taking up the time of the House to talk of things which are there to be seen by anyone who visits the valleys of Wales. What the Government have done will speak for itself, without the help of Welsh oratory, when the occasion arrives next year for the Government to justify themselves to the country.
There is one aspect of the White Paper to which I must refer. Whilst it represents a tremendous amount of good work in our economic and social life, what upsets me—and this point has received very little mention today—is that it refers to a geographical area in this island with the same kind of impersonal feeling as if we were discussing a White Paper covering, say, the north-east or the southwest of the country. There is a complete absence of appreciation in this White Paper of the fact that the figures and paragraphs refer to a nation, the Welsh nation, and not merely to a geographical area. They refer to the Cymru who still inhabit a part of this island.
The White Paper gives not the remotest recognition of the fundamental fact that we are dealing not just with a geographical area but with a people, a nation, which has its own language, its own literature, its own tradition and its own peculiar way of life. I must impress upon hon. and right hon. Friends who may have far greater influence with the Government than I have the necessity of trying to get it into their minds that when they talk about Wales they are not talking about a mere area, or district, but about a people who live their own life, as far as they are permitted to do so, and not just about a part of this island. I want to emphasise that because it is a fact that colours a great deal of our life.
That is my criticism of this White Paper and the reason why the reading of it is not as happy as it should have been. As Welshmen, we know that our political history has, perforce, been a part of the political history of Britain. Here the Picts and Scots can sympathise with us, but our social life has remained throughout the centuries and has not lost its native character. On a day like this I must emphasise that our culture is our own and springs from the people. In Wales our culture is often referred to as diwylliant gwerin, the culture of the people.
The word devolution has been used this afternoon. No one is more passionately prepared to support and sustain our Parliamentary democracy than I am, but when we people of Wales make the demand that a measure of devolution should be granted to us to manage and control our own affairs, we justify that demand by the very obvious fact that Parliamentary democracy will inevitably be destroyed by the terrific pressure of mass congestion of work which this House has to face unless a considerable measure of devolution is granted, not only to Wales, but to Scotland, as well as to England. As one of the three nations of this island, Wales will not let down the welfare of this island. If Wales is permitted to have some control of its own domestic affairs, certainly there would be no more loyal and hospitable part of this island than the people of Wales when that which is not a privilege but a right is granted to them.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: Four things I desire of the Government and, with a view to being helpful, I will come to them immediately, without any preamble. In the first place, I ask the Government to give the ports of Wales every facility so that they can work to full capacity. I make that request, in the interests not only of Wales, but of Great Britain. Hon. Members will readily recall that during the years of emergency, 1914–1918 and 1939–1945, the South Wales docks were a tremendous asset to the Government. Repeated tribute was paid by Ministers of Transport to the dockers for their effective work and their quick turn-round. I am gratified to observe in the White Paper that the repairs to the Queen Alexandra Lock,

the principal lock entrance to the Cardiff dock system, have now been completed. That will enable the authorities in that important city to accelerate their post-war progress.
Ten years ago I was a member of a deputation from the Swansea local authority which waited upon the then Minister of Transport, asking him to help us in the provision of a second entrance to the main dock in Swansea. We were very well received and there was every prospect of something being done, but unhappily the curse of war fell upon us and the work has yet to be carried out. If any grave mishap occurred to the existing entrance, the trade of the port would be completely paralysed and that would have a serious effect on the anthracite export trade and the import of oil. Repercussions would be felt throughout the whole of South and West Wales, and the problem of unemployment would be added to materially. I know that the matter is having the attention of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, but if the Parliamentary Secretary can give them an encouraging prod, we shall be grateful.
Last week we discussed the desirability of British ships being repaired in British ports. We have skilled men in Wales and Scotland waiting for such work, and if the Minister of Transport can use his influence to bring that work to our ports and have it fairly allocated, a very useful purpose will be served.
If it were not for the urgency of the matter, I would not return to the problem referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Swansea (Mr. Mort), namely, the prospective redundancy in the steel and tinplate industry. It would be a very serious reproach to the Government if no plans were ready to employ the 10,000 to 12,000 redundant men who are expected.
There is another facet to the matter. Hon. Members may know that a large number of foreigners have been imported to cope with the present situation, and when this redundancy occurs these men from other countries will constitute a problem in themselves. Foresight is better than hindsight, and we have drawn the Government's attention to this matter for more than two years. I beg the President of the Board of Trade to give the matter his attention.
I wish also to mention the urgent need for greater flexibility on the part of the Ministry of Works in dealing with applications for building licences from the blitzed towns of Wales. I am not unmindful of the difficulties confronting the Minister, but he must agree that a town which has been almost completely destroyed needs at least a little more help than towns which were fortunate enough to escape such a disaster. I have had some disappointing experiences with the Ministry of Works in the last few months. I beg them to be conscious of the great problem which faces a town such as Swansea and indeed the City of Cardiff, which aim at being restored to their pre-war size and usefulness but cannot achieve their purpose unless they are allowed to have new buildings.
It is also very desirable that the Minister of Transport—I mention this to him as being a great friend of Wales—should help us by giving immediate authority for certain road works to be done and not to wait for the financial year 1950. Until these road works are executed, new roads in the town cannot be built, premises cannot be sited, and the restoration of a badly blitzed city will be seriously delayed. I mention this to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport because I freely acknowledge that his Department has been most helpful. Indeed, I cannot resist the conclusion that he is to reply tonight on behalf of the Government because, his Ministry has the very best record and is the least vulnerable to attack. I ask him to take note of the problems which I have mentioned so far as his Department is concerned, and if he will use his influence with the Ministry of Works and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, we shall feel that we are making better progress than ever. I acknowledge the merit of the White Paper and I congratulate the Government on what they have done. It is because of this that I want them to do a good deal more.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. David Thomas: The subject to which I should once again like to draw the attention of the House has already been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), and I endorse much of what he has told us. I am referring to the Grenfell factories and the Advance

factories. I speak as the Member for Aberdare where we have three of the Advance factories and one of the Grenfell factories empty. The unemployed who have been waiting for such a long time for employment tend to believe that they are forgotten. The continually ask when these factories are to be tenanted.
I am satisfied that the officials of the Board of Trade are doing all they can to induce industrialists to take them over, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda in saying that we cannot expect industrialists to take over a factory and employ at least 50 per cent. of the disabled persons on their pay roll. I can see only one course for the Government to take, which is to offer incentives to industrialists. Instead of paying thousands of men unemployment benefit year in and year out, which costs thousands of pounds, let the Government give some monetary incentives to firms of high repute to take these factories over. If it is found that they will not take them over, the only alternative, which has been suggested on several occasions from these benches, is that the Government should not hesitate to take them over, employ these men and produce goods for the home and export markets.
These men have served the nation loyally throughout the years by digging the coal which is absolutely necessary. Now that they are broken down in health as a result of accidents and industrial diseases, they deserve every sympathy and help from this Government. Other factories in my constituency are empty. Efforts have been made to get tenants for them, but as in the case of the Rhondda valleys there appears to be no hope at the moment that they will come into production. We are told that the number of unemployed is 36,000, of whom 12,000 or 13,000 are disabled workmen. Even if the factories which have been erected were functioning they would not be anything like the number required to employ the unemployed in South Wales.
Very little has been said today on the question of housing. While we appreciate the efforts of the Minister of Health in building the number of houses which he has done, and the full report he has given on page 33—I need not refer to any of the figures—much has yet to be


done. Practically every week I receive letters urging me to do what I can to find housing accommodation. There is still an immense amount of overcrowding in the Welsh valleys. Indeed it is amazing to me how some of these people can live under their existing conditions. We can do no more than urge the Government to regard this problem as one demanding priority because unless we have a contented body of people in the mining valleys and in the countryside we cannot hope to get the best results from them.
Another problem upon which I wish to touch—I have spoken about it before—relates to industrial diseases. The main industrial diseases we have are pneumoconiosis and silicosis. Now, since vesting day, if I remember aright, the medical board no longer suspend a man from the mining industry if he is suffering from pneumoconiosis unless it is accompanied by tuberculosis. That leads me to believe that those who have the disease in the first stages—let us assume that a man has 30 per cent. disability and receives a 30 per cent payment of 45s.—are not suspended, and as I understand the position are permitted to return to underground work.
Prior to this alteration, any man certified as suffering from this industrial disease would be suspended immediately from the industry and would not be allowed to go back again. I am satisfied that those who do decide to go back, knowing full well that they are affected, do so for economic reasons. If they knew that there were outside factories, and outside work, they would certainly not go back underground, but would accept more congenial work.
Hon. Members have referred to afforestation and the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) referred to the hydro-electric schemes in North Wales. We are agreed that the beauty of the countryside should not be spoiled, but she also said that she was afraid the valleys of South Wales could not be re-beautified. We read in the week-end papers that the Forestry Commission intend taking 20,000 acres of agricultural land in mid-Wales, involving 46 farms, ignoring altogether all the South Wales coal valleys which once upon a time, prior to the Industrial Revolu-

tion, were the beauty spots of South Wales.
Much can be done to grow timber on the hillsides of the mining valleys. We shall require it in the years to come. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture would deny that that is possible. In a neighbouring constituency of mine, the Neath Division, there is a beautiful valley of 18 or 19 miles of the same type of land as on those hillsides. What is there to prevent the Forestry Commission setting small plantations in the mining valleys and employing some of the disabled miners who are available?
In those areas there are roads already built. In mid-Wales roads must be constructed for the forests which would be very costly. In South Wales we have the roads already laid. Trees could be planted by the side of them, and the eventual cost of taking the timber would be negligible. I have communicated with the Minister on this subject, but I would urge upon him again to do all he can to get these small plantations planted in the South Wales Valleys and thus help to solve the unemployment problem.
I wish also to refer to the question of our slow-moving trains, and especially to the Carmarthen and Aberystwyth line, and right round the coast of North Wales. I would say that they are going slower now than when the railways were built. On the line from Merthyr up to mid-Wales it takes practically a day to go 40 or 50 miles. Well, perhaps that is an exaggeration, but in any case it is full time that every consideration was given to speeding up these trains in order to provide better transport in those districts.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: No Welsh Debate on the White Paper could be placed in its true perspective unless someone on this side of the House had some suggestions to make, or criticisms to offer. Last time I made some criticisms of which no notice was taken. Tonight I propose to offer some suggestions in the hope that more notice will be taken.
I am rather disappointed that the information in the White Paper which we are debating tonight, is entirely out of date. With regard to agriculture, we have later figures in the September


Returns. In the White Paper the four-and-a-half pages on agriculture seem very little, compared with the huge and important area in Wales which is devoted to agriculture. As a matter of fact, all the services connected with agriculture are not covered. If any hon. Member could peep at the documents laid before the heads of Departments in Cardiff at the quarterly meetings, we might get far more information than is contained in the White Paper.
I suggest that Wales in this respect should be treated in the same way as Scotland. Are we not entitled to a White Paper dealing with agriculture? Surely if Scotland can get a White Paper dealing with agriculture—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We do not get one.

Mr. Watkins: Scotland did not have one covering the last 10 years, but Scotland was not responsible for the war, and in future Scotland will get one. They had one in 1938, if I may remind the hon. Member of it, although he is a Welshman. Even if we cannot get a White Paper on agriculture for Wales, we ought to get a White Paper every six months in order to have our information right up to date.
I can mention a number of omissions even with regard to agriculture at the present time. Last year I called attention to the fact that there was no reference to the number of rural telephone kiosks erected in Wales. There is no reference to that again this year. There was no reference to rural electrification last year and there is no reference to it this year. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) mentioned that there was no reference to the labour force. Although it is stated that the output per man has increased, there is no information as to whether it is for regular or for casual workers. We have information about foreign workers, but that is no good to the Welsh people. What they want is information about their own workers.
There is no information about whether there are any horses in Wales. There is no information about machinery, or whether there are any grass dryers in existence—there are, of course, but there is no information about it. There is no information about insemination

centres, or seed potato production and cultivation or about houses or the forestry workers. If we examine the annual report of the Forestry Commission, we find that three forestry holdings have been derelict during the last 12 months, but there is no information about that in the White Paper. There is no reference to the classification or the mileage of Class I, II or HI or unclassified roads.
I can give 100 per cent. credit to the Minister of Agriculture for what has been done during the last 12 months. The difficulty we are in is that we do not know what has been done unless we go and see it. It is manifest round the countryside. There is a changed and a far better countryside than when I was a boy, or even before the war. Six out of 10 of our farmers are engaged in milk production and one can see the milk-churn stands by the side of the country roads in Wales. Far more important is the fact that the health of our younger people in the urban and industrial areas has improved, and that to me is most important. I think that the good work of any Government is reflected in its own people. I wish to render thanks to the Welsh Department; but I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that my information is that there is a great deal of autonomy being taken away from the Welsh Department. If that kind of thing is to be attempted, there are a good many fighters on this side of the House who will see that it does not take place. I hope that is not true and that I shall be told if I am wrong.
I want to give special thanks for what has been done in connection with the calf rearing subsidy and the marginal land production scheme. I do not want to use the words of the Opposition when they said that the Government spent £20 per acre on groundnuts in Africa and only one penny an acre on marginal land in this country, but I ask the Government to give more attention to marginal land in Wales. They should see that the scheme gets great support in the future, because it is worthy of it. There are common lands in Wales which are likely to go back to the farmers within the next 12 months or so. I hope that does not happen. The commons belong to the people, but it is no use owning them if they do nothing about them. I am concerned


that they should be used to the full for food production. In Wales we have our peculiar problems because of elevation and rainfall.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture that too much emphasis on wheat growing ought not to be enforced on the agricultural committees. There are opportunities for useful work in livestock production which could be carried out if the hill farming scheme could be speeded up and prompt payments made of grants on account. That is very important. Also, sympathetic consideration should be given to the small tenant farmer and the owner-occupier who has very little capital, to allow them to get on with schemes of hill farming and marginal land work.
I wish to refer to the Council for Wales. One comment will be on the credit side and the other will be on the debit side. I will make my critical point first. I was very much surprised to find that during the weekend an announcement was made to a body of farmers. The notice convening the meeting at Llandovery stated, "You may bring one near relative to the meeting." What for? Just to hear their death sentence for the next 40 years. Forty-six farmers and their families were told at that meeting that their land would be absorbed by the Forestry Commission. Ought not that statement to have been made first in the House of Commons, so that we as Members of Parliament could have said something about it? Then, the announcement should have been made in the town of Llandovery without making such a rush for a Press conference in Cardiff and giving that more attention than was given to the people at the meeting.
I ask the junior Minister who is to close the Debate whether he agrees that this vital matter is one which ought to be considered by the Council for Wales. I suggest that the terms of reference provide for it. The first refers to:
… interchange of views and information on developments and trends in the economic and cultural fields … 
Let us examine the economic trends. First, this is a question of trees versus sheep. From an economic standpoint it can be argued that trees are far more important than sheep, but is that so at the moment? In this area 14,000 sheep

are involved. If a loss of 14,000 sheep can be taken lightly by the Government in our present crisis of food production, I am very sorry for them. Food production is most important. In the last White Paper it was stated that the acquisition of land for forestry had to be slowed down because of food production. Is the position any better now? I suggest that the first step the Minister should have taken was to satisfy himself that all the old woodlands in Wales had been re-afforested not after the last war but after the 1914–18 war. There would have been sufficient acres then without considering what was cut down during the last war.
I suggest that the Commission are coming down on these poor hill farmers and others because their own dedication scheme has failed. If they want an advertisement for their Forestry Commission work, they should let farmers pass through the constituency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and go through Plymlimon. That is not a very good advertisement for the Forestry Commission. Mention has been made of the relationship of officials of the Commission with the Welsh people. That is not good. I want the people in this area of Carmarthen, Cardigan and parts of Breconshire to have confidence in any scheme. They cannot very well have confidence if they find these things and that the great private landlords in Wales get away without any plantation at all.
From the cultural point of view, why, oh, why do they go into Welsh-speaking areas all the time? Why do they go to areas where the Welsh culture is predominant? I do not know whether or not they know anything about Welsh culture in the Ministry of Agriculture, but they ought not to do these things. Are they aware that the culture of Wales has been built up around these small farms and their attitude determined towards their religious, social and even political life? This is taking away the very foundation of our nation.
The Ministry ought to have their ears to the ground. They would then have known that last Sunday these Welsh people, desperate about their future, had gone into the chapels to offer prayers asking that they should be rid of this great invasion. I should be 100 per cent. with the highwayman Twm Shon Catti


if it were possible to ask him what he proposed to do about this action. I know on whose side he would be. With modern implements I would be behind him.
I suggest that the Government should examine No. 2 of the terms of reference:
to secure that the Government are adequately informed of the impact of Government activities on the general life of the people of Wales.
Is not this an aspect which the Council for Wales ought to examine? Is not this a clear case? Or is it a case that the council themselves look at problems and ask Government permission to examine them? Surely, this should be a two-way traffic. The Government should take steps to discover Welsh opinion upon this catastrophic aotion in my constituency and in neighbouring ones. When the position of the Forestry Commission is examined and one asks why they want trees, they do not emphasise that timber is wanted for housing but that it is wanted for the next war. I much prefer that they should consider agriculture and the feeding of our people rather than timber for the next war.
I am glad that the council are to examine the problem of depopulation in rural Wales. What a fine list of subjects one could offer to them, including water supplies, rural schools, housing, rural roads and telephones. There is one problem upon which I should like to get some information and it is concerned with rural electrification. We have heard about the Government decision, but are hon. Members aware that last Tuesday the chairman of the South Wales Electricity Board said:
We don't know how it will affect our programme. Talks are taking place at a high level.
Is not that board entitled, all this time after the Government decision, to know what cuts are to be made in schemes for rural electrification? I suggest that, of all activities in Wales, this is one upon which information should be given, because only 11 per cent. of farm holdings have any electricity at all.
I am glad to have had this opportunity of taking part in this Debate. I had intended to give as much credit as possible to the Government for what they have done. I give that credit, but part of it is taken away because of the action of

the Ministry of Agriculture in the place which I represent in the House of Commons. I welcome the White Paper and wish to pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance for the increased statistics and facts given there, as well as for the charming way in which he introduced the White Paper to us.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Granville West: If there is one thing that has emerged in the Debate today, it is that, notwithstanding criticisms on various points, the policy of the Government, and particularly the policy for the diversification of industry in Wales, cannot be criticised by anybody in this House.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White) made reference to the situation and came to the conclusion that the position in future would be more acute because of the shortage of labour. He also mentioned that in the Conservative Party policy for Wales, which he apparently endeavoured to publicise, reference was made to the further diversification of industry. The hon. Gentleman conceded that one of the great problems in future will be that of obtaining the labour with which to man the factories which the Government have already placed there, yet he still supports the policy of the Conservative Party, which he says is outlined in the pamphlet published in February of this year.
In spite of all the minor criticisms which have been made in this Debate today, it seems to me that there are two tests which can be applied to discover whether the Government policy in the interests of Wales has succeeded or not. Those two tests are in addition to those of increased employment figures, increased numbers of factories and the general diversification of industry; but they are tests which do affect the interests of the people of Wales. The policy of diversification which the Government have pursued since 1945 is, of course, no new policy. Even the Labour Government of 1929 to 1931 enunciated this policy, but, because they were in a minority in the House of Commons, they were completely powerless to implement it. It is quite clear that the Conservative Party, when in power for many years preceding the war, did nothing at all to


implement that policy of diversification which they now say is their policy for the future.
In the years before the war, Wales was in great danger of disintegration, and it has been said that the population of Wales decreased by 430,000. From 1925 to 1938 the population of Wales consistently declined. Year after year, there was a drift of the population from Wales. What has been the position since the Labour Government came into power? There has been a consistent increase in the population, and the people who were driven from Wales have returned. In fact, the increase from 1945 to the 31st December, 1948, is no fewer than 130,000; and it has been a consistent increase for each of the years since 1945, thus completely reversing the trend that existed for the 13 years immediately before the war.
On that point alone, Wales has been assisted by this Labour Government by bringing back to the country many of the people who were driven away in the years before the war. If I have one criticism to make of the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), it is about his description of Wales. In fact the people now returning are returning to the land of their fathers because they know now that they will have economic security. On that account, this Government deserves well of the people of Wales.
There is another test which I will apply, a test concerning not the workers but the business people, the middle-class people of Wales and Monmouth. During the years between the wars, when there was so much unemployment, poverty and distress, and a consequent lack of purchasing power, the business community suffered severely. There were so many unable to pay their debts that they were driven into bankruptcy. For the 13 years before 1938, the average annual number of bankruptcies amongst the business population of Wales and Monmouth was 228. What has been the position since the Labour Government came into power in 1945? Have the business communities of South Wales and Monmouth been unable to pay their debts, and have they been driven into bankruptcy? The average number of bankruptcies per year from 1945 until the present time has

been, not 228, but 17. Let hon. Members remember those figures—17 in comparison with 228. Even the business community in South Wales—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman say what were the figures for the years 1929–31?

Mr. West: It may interest the hon. and learned Gentleman to know that, even during the period of the Labour Government from 1929 to 1931 they were better than in the year immediately before, under Tory rule, and in the year immediately after, when the Tories came back.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures for 1931, then?

Mr. West: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will give me a moment and allow me to go on with my speech, I will certainly give him the details, but he may take it as a fact, because I have extracted the figures myself and I believe they are correct. In addition to the tests applied in the White Paper these are two outstanding tests of the success of the policy of the Labour Government in regard to the interests of the people of Wales.
There are one or two other matters, however, to which I wish to draw the attention of the Government. Notwithstanding their great success in attacking the major problems of South Wales, there are still certain pockets which require special action, and I am referring particularly to areas which the Minister of National Insurance knows very well. One is the district of Blaenavon. It is not an isolated instance in South Wales, but is one of a number in South Wales which require special treatment on the part of the Government.
A special problem is presented there which cannot be solved by the attack which the Government have made upon general problems existing in South Wales. Furthermore, in certain areas, there are industries that have been closed down, where valuable factory sites are available but which cannot be obtained for the use of other industrialists because of the power of the owners of these premises to refuse reasonable terms. I feel that the Government should deal with that. They should take the necessary powers to ensure that if there is any available factory


space which is not being utilised to the full by the industrialist concerned, they can compulsorily acquire such premises in the interests of the community and in the interests of the district.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that if in the opinion of the Government a factory is only working at 30 par cent. of its efficiency or its production rate, the Government should step in and say, "We are taking over this place in order to give it to somebody else "?

Mr. West: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask a question on this matter even though he does not represent a Welsh constituency. I note that there is no hon. Member present on the benches opposite representing a Welsh constituency to put the question. I take the view that if there is vacant factory space available and the industrialist concerned is unable to satisfy the authorities that he has schemes for its developments and utilisation, he should not be able to retain those premises for the purpose of extracting unfair terms from anybody who desires to take them over.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to mislead the House, and I do not want to misunderstand him. I am very interested in the prosperity of Wales because the prosperity of the part of the country which I represent depends on the prosperity of South Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that the whole place has got to be vacant, or does he mean, what in fact he implied, that if some 60,70 or 70 per cent. of any industrial premises are vacant and cannot for some technical reason be used, the Government should at that stage step in and take the lot?

Mr. West: I am suggesting that where there are completely vacant factory premises which are not being utilised and the industrialist concerned has no plan for their utilisation, then he should not be allowed to hold the premises for the purpose of obtaining a higher price or of denuding the district of an additional industry merely because he is not prepared to come to reasonable terms for its acquisition. In such circumstances, I say that the Government should compulsorily acquire the premises, paying compensation on reasonable terms, thus preventing the industrialist from denying the

district the opportunity of having another industry.
There is another point on which I wish to touch—the question of technical education. Having regard to the expanding diversification of industry in South Wales and Monmouthshire, technical education becomes of first-class importance. I hope that the Government will do everything they can to develop technical education in Wales and Monmouthshire because the future of our industries depend on it. I am sorry I have taken up more time than I had intended and I am afraid there are still some points I have left untouched. I hope the hon. Gentleman who follows me will forgive me for having taken so long.

8.25 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I want to deal with a highly professional subject on which the Minister dilated in a most optimistic style this afternoon. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has done excellent work in this direction, but I wish to put in a plea for more information about dust with regard to silicosis and pneumoconiosis. I have taken the precaution to get from the Library the last two reports for 1946 and 1947 by His Majesty's Inspector of Factories in regard to these diseases. Could we not have a little better classification and a little more information in these reports? Having regard to the prevalence of this scourge in the coalfields and quarries of Wales, could not my right hon. Friend arrange for us to have a little more information? We are interested in the subject, not only patriotically from the point of view of Wales and Great Britain, but from the highly professional and technical aspect of this disease and its proper and early diagnosis.
In the 1946 report only one and a half pages are devoted to dust. But it is all general; there is nothing specific. Wales is particularly interested in this matter because the coalfield of Wales is hard compared with those in Lancashire, Yorkshire and other places. We have tried to get the figures, but we cannot get them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: From what report is my hon. Friend quoting?

Dr. Morgan: I am quoting from the last two reports of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories with regard to industrial diseases. As I have said, only one and a


half pages of the 1946 report are devoted to dust, and even then there is nothing specific. I want the statistics about this danger point in Wales.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I should like to get this clear My hon. Friend appreciates, of course, that pneumoconiosis in the mines is not covered in the report of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories, but in the coal mines report.

Dr. Morgan: We have been trying hard for years to get this information, but there seems to be a closed area which we cannot penetrate. I know how hard the Minister has to fight in his Department to get information, but the outside medical profession and we who are interested in the problem, want information with regard to pneumoconiosis, silicosis and tuberculosis in Wales.
It appears from the report that in spite of all that my right hon. Friend has done, the figures have risen from 132 in 1940 to 347 in 1947. I agree that there may be better and earlier diagnosis, and I appreciate all the very good work which my right hon. Friend is doing, but I am asking that the public should be given more information with regard to these diseases. Silicosis and tuberculosis figures are given, but it is all general. Let the Minister see whether we can have more specific information about the special coalfields in Wales, which are hard, dangerous and different from other coalfields. We want particulars of the medical arrangements that are being made; we want to be told what it is hoped to do in future.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am sure that the House is deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) for having raised such an important point. I am glad that he, with the surname that he has, has intervened in the Debate. I will come back to silicosis and pneumoconiosis in a few moments, but first I want to say that since 1944, when the then Welsh Members persuaded the then war-time Government to give us a day to debate Welsh affairs, we have had this annual Debate. Just like the first and suceeding Debates this one has been unsatisfactory, disjointed and ineffective.
I only wish that those hon. Members who have come here for the first time

since 1945 could have heard the scorn poured on our first Debate by the Minister of Health who, with the Minister of National Insurance, pointed out that there is only one way in which to deal with Welsh matters, and that is by devolution. That is why this Debate is so unsatisfactory. Fortunately, the present Government have a number of Welsh Ministers, but glad as we are to see the Minister of National Insurance—and he has been here for most of the day—we know that it is impossible for him to answer all the questions that have been put by hon. Members from various Welsh constituencies. I should have thought that that would have provided the complete answer to the solution which the Tory Party are suggesting for the Welsh problem.
They are content that there should be a Minister—not necessarily a Welshman, because I do not suppose they could provide one; it would be a rarity, especially if he sat for a Welsh constituency—with all the talents, and knowing everything going on in other Departments, to answer and be responsible for our country at all times. I wonder whether they will mete out the same treatment with regard to Scotland—and I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland here today. There may be an interesting announcement soon about their proposals for Scotland. I anticipate that they will show greater anxiety for Scotland than they have hitherto done for Wales.

Mr. Bowen: They always have.

Mr. Davies: The reason is that they have given up any hope of getting any effective representation for the Tory Party from Wales.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Nonsense.

Mr. Davies: Even the hon. and learned Member himself had to go outside Wales to get to the House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I conquered a part of England.

Mr. Davies: I do not intend to enter into the industrial area, but I am sure that those Members who come from Glamorgan, Carmarthen and Monmouth will realise the difficulties of calling attention to the question of the mining industry. It would have been necessary for the Minister of Fuel and Power or


the Minister of Labour and possibly the Minister of Health to be here to answer points. It is the first thing that is referred to in this White Paper, and it is rather significant. For example, why is it that there are not more recruits coming into the coal industry in South Wales? Why has no question been put with regard to that? In paragraph 10 it is referred to in these words:
The total production of saleable coal from the South Wales coalfield for the 52 weeks ended 2nd July, 1949, was 22,572,100 tons compared with 21,879,100 tons for the preceding twelve months, an increase of 693,000 tons. The increase was restricted in some areas by lack of manpower and in others, particularly in the anthracite area, by low output from the manpower available.
Hon. Members opposite who have worked in the coalfields of South Wales know what their output was. What is the answer with regard to that paragraph? Surely there ought to be questions on output today
On the matters raised in paragraph 25, I imagine that the Minister of Labour and possibly the Minister of Health might become involved:
The number of workmen on colliery books in South Wales increased from 107,657 at the end of 1947 to 108,618 at the end of June, 1948, but has declined since, and at the end of June, 1949, amounted only to 106,300. Among the factors which contributed to the failure to achieve a larger labour force in 1948, were shortage of hostel accommodation … 
Who has denounced the past more than hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent colliery areas in South Wales? The lack of houses was rightly denounced today by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. J. Evans). I know those houses, and I denounced them in 1937, 1938 and 1939. If anybody deserves a decent. warm, comfortable house it is the miner, who goes into the bowels of the earth to get warmth for the rest of us; and yet I read this:
Among the factors which contributed to the failure to achieve a larger labour force in 1948 were shortage of hostel accommodation in areas where there were demands for skilled labour … 
One of the main reasons why colliery production has not been higher is the absence of that skilled labour. Look at the other side:
… inability to absorb European Volunteer Workers because of accommodation difficulties, objection by some colliery lodge committees to the employment of certain classes of foreign workers and the difficulty sometimes of accept-

ing new labour because of redundancy following reorganisation and closure of pits.
Where are the Ministers who will give us information with regard to that?
Many of us knew the situation in Glamorgan and Monmouth between the two wars, and of the exodus from those two counties. Somebody has already given the figure—442,000 between 1921 and 1938. This afternoon there has been much boasting and a chorus of approval as to how much better and more wonderful things have been during the last four years. I will deal with that in a moment. Here in the Government's own report we are told that there is not sufficient hostel accommodation for skilled workers. If anybody deserves it, they do. Why were they not given priority?
If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking that all the other conditions which have come about since 1939 are due to his Government, I would ask: "Has he really forgotten that there was a war? Has he forgotten the shortages that were inevitable during those six years? Has he really forgotten that those shortages will have to be made up and that, with proper guidance, there ought not to be any unemployment, not merely for the past four years, but for two or three generations? The credit for that situation does not belong to any particular Government. Has the right hon. Gentleman also forgotten that the situation might have been terribly worse but for the help which we have from America?

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have not forgotten that, at the end of the First World War, the Government with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was associated unfortunately did not implement the Sankey Report.

Mr. Davies: It was not a Government with which I was associated, but with which hon. Members above the Gangway were associated. There was one person, I agree. The Minister of Fuel and Power ought to have been here to deal with these matters and give an explanation to the miners of South Wales, who deserve an answer on the details.
Then we had a speech from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I forget what his exact words were, although I wrote them down. He referred to the White Paper as a record of rejuvenation in Wales. I wish he had


stayed in to listen to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). Too often, hon. Members for industrial areas confine their attention entirely to the conditions in their own areas. We who come from other areas do not confine our attention to the rural areas. We realise that a great deal of our prosperity will depend upon the prosperity of the industrial areas. Almost without exception the urban Members have paid no attention whatever to the rural areas. 'They referred to the exodus which took place between the two wars. They never referred to the fact that they drew, for something like 100 years from the rural areas, the very lifeblood of Wales, that the best people of Wales were poured into the Rhondda Valley and that, in the circumstances of those days, we saw them again only when they came home to die of tuberculosis or silicosis. Hon. Members rarely pay attention to that aspect of the matter. Let us look at it.
I will turn to the figures again of the number of people employed. They are: in mining and quarrying, 19.5 per cent.; agriculture and fishery—at a time when all of us are very concerned about food for now and the future—5.7 per cent. It is interesting to observe that there are more people in public administration, who eat the food that is produced by the people in agriculture and fisheries. They number 7.3 of the manpower of Wales, against only 5.7 who go into agriculture and fishery.
With regard to that point, one would like to have had the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture, who is also the Minister for forestry. He has not been near us all day. His Parliamentary Secretary put in a word during a minute or two to give information to the hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Government. Here is an agricultural question which involves all the counties of Wales, including the industrial ones. The only reply from the Government will be by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I do not suppose that he has had much experience of agriculture or forestry, for his life has led him along other paths. I do not for a moment depreciate what he has done; I admire his ability and courage at all

times; but he is not the man to reply on a serious question of agriculture and forestry.
An attempt was made to extract from Wales a larger percentage of land for military purposes than from England or from Scotland, and in the same way we are now threatened with a change in our life. The Minister of National Insurance said that there is a change in the outlook in Wales today. There will be if the forestry policy is pursued. The Welshman, the Welsh fanner and the culture of Wales, will be uprooted. Pine trees will be planted instead, and the Government will be bringing in alien people with an outlook entirely different from that which we have had.
The figures given by the hon. Member for Wrexham were confined to what he could find in the White Paper. Fortunately, I have extracted some figures in regard to the decrease in the rural population and compared them with the decrease in the industrial areas. We know the sad decrease which there was between 1921 and 1947. The decrease in Glamorgan between 1921 and 1947 was 82,211 or 10 per cent., some having returned. The decrease in Monmouth was 46,000 or 13 per cent. As for the rural counties, Brecon was 13 per cent., Cardigan 13 per cent., Merioneth 15 per cent., Montgomery 13 per cent., and Radnor 16 per cent. That has been going on ever since the industrial era began in South Wales. The real tragedy of Wales is the continued exodus from our rural areas. Our export from the rural areas is one of flesh and blood, of young men and young women.

Mr. Cove: Before the Labour Government came into power.

Mr. Davies: It is continuing now, as the hon. Member will see in a moment when I come to the figures for the rural areas. Under his great Labour Government, the death rate in Anglesey exceeds the birthrate. So it does in Carmarthen, Cardigan and Merioneth and also last year, but not this year, in Montgomery. If that continues we shall have counties of old-age pensioners. We are being driven to that.
What are the Government doing to bring these people back. I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promising us that they would do their


best to bring back to our market towns, industries allied to agriculture so that we might retain these people and bring prosperity to the countryside once more; and not only bring material prosperity but an increased moral value to the life these people would lead instead of their having to lead the artificial life we all have to lead in this great wen of London.
But what have they done? Increased the draw down again into the industrial areas of South Wales and into the Wrexham area of North Wales. And still nothing is being done for these rural areas. They say, "Yes, we have now turned on this great council to inquire into it." An inquiry in secret! We do not know what evidence the Council will take. We do not know anything about any conclusions it may reach. If the Government wanted this done openly they could have appointed a Royal Commission to inquire and could have taken evidence from the countryside. We would have been able to tell them what the position is, but now we do not know on whom these people will call. That is all, with regard to Wales as a whole, that the Government have to offer—this Council.

Mr. Cove: I will not have that. There is a scheme of employment and it has put my people back into work.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member was not in the Chamber—

Mr. Cove: I have been in the House for hours. The scheme has given my people work.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Order. The hon. Member ought to rise when he speaks.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member was not in the House when I was dealing with that—

Mr. Cove: Yes.

Mr. Davies: He came in later. I leave it at that.

Mr. Cove: It has given my people work.

Mr. Davies: What has happened with regard to the views that were being expressed as recently as 1944 by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance? He knew then, as he knows now, what was the demand of Wales.

Standing at that Box then, he expressed that view. Why has that now been rejected and we are given instead what the noble Lady so rightly described as a spineless secret committee of this kind inquiring into the biggest problem of Wales—the problem of the exodus of our young men—

Mr. Cove: We have stopped that.

Mr. Davies: —from every county and every rural point.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I should think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last man to decry the value of committees in Wales. The committee over which he presided did a good job.

Mr. Davies: Yes, but when are we to get any information with regard to it? This is a secret committee. The Lord President of the Council said it will sit in secret.

Mr. Cove: No.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove)—

Mr. Cove: He knows what he is talking about.

Mr. Davies: —is now calling the Lord President all kinds of names. I do not do that. The point made by the Lord President was that it should sit in secret and make its report to Ministers and make no report whatsoever to this House. It might by-pass hon. Members of this House even on questions such as have been rightly raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). How do we know what has been going on with regard to the forestry policy which is denuding the countryside of its population? How can we know? As the hon. Member has said, they make statements to a Press conference without any discussion with Members of Parliament. It may be that this precious council was called in and their advice was followed. There is only One solution both for the benefit of this House and for the benefit of Wales, and that is that there shall be devolution of powers from this House to Wales in order that the Welsh people can deal with their own affairs in their own country.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am much obliged to my right


hon. and learned Friend, if I may so call him across the House, for his characteristic courtesy and consideration in allowing me some time in which to make a few observations towards the end of this Debate. I regret that I differ so strongly from him about the Council of Wales, but we had this out a year ago.
I do not want to do what I did last time—that is, to devote the whole of my speech to the Council of Wales—and to neglect the ports for which I certainly have some responsibility in this House. It is on these ports in Wales that I wish to make some observations this evening. After the course of the Debate and some of the speeches which have been made, I feel that I must almost apologise for not making a violent attack upon the Government for their policy with regard to the Welsh ports.
Everyone, whatever his political complexion, who is in the least concerned with the ports and industry of Wales knows perfectly well that, whatever Government is in power, it can only succeed in bringing prosperity to Wales in so far as it pursues a Socialist policy. There are industrialists in Wales today who openly subscribe to the Tory party but secretly trust that, for the sake of South Wales, the Labour Government will again be returned. It is impossible for South Wales to survive except on a deliberate, planned policy, and the ports of Wales reflect the general policy of the Government towards Wales.
I have some figures dealing with the first 40 weeks—that is as late as I can get them—of 1949. Let me compare them with similar periods of 1938 and 1948. In 1938 the total import and export trade through the Welsh ports was 20 million tons; in 1948 it was 10 million tons; and in 1949, 12 million tons. For coal alone the 1938 export figure was 16 million tons; in 1948, five million tons; and in 1949, six million tons. We have here a gradual improvement of the position of the ports in Wales, and an export of six million tons of coal in the first 40 weeks of 1949.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport knows as well as I do that during the time of the 1945 Election, when we had conversations with those concerned with

exports in Cardiff and elsewhere in South Wales, it was not contemplated that it would be possible to export any coal at all from Wales within five years after the end of the war.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): indicated assent.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: But here we have exports starting long before the expiration of the five-year period, and we have this considerable tonnage going out through the South Wales ports. It is not only a question of the increase in coal through those ports; it is also a case of producing a more balanced trade through the ports than in the past. Inland, as everyone is perfectly aware, the policy of the Government has been to produce more varied industries and to relieve Wales from its utter dependence upon the heavy industries and from its liability to fall again into acute depression. The same thing is happening in the ports. Through them we now have a more varied output and intake than we had before.
I am concerned that, although the proportion of general cargo and other commodities in South Wales has increased commendably and appreciably, we do not have such a healthy variety of trade through the ports as we have succeeded in producing inland. That is a matter with which, I trust, the Government are not unfamiliar and to which, i hope, they will continue to give attention. I wish to refer briefly to this general cargo trade because it is an important matter in dealing with the question of variety, out of all proportion to the mere tonnage involved.
One point with which my hon. Friend is very familiar is the question of charges in the ports and the fact that in South Wales the ship-owners do not bear the same proportion of charges as in other ports. I am very glad to acknowledge that Houlder Brothers have given a lead in this respect. I hope that other shipowners will follow that very valuable indication of what they consider to be the just policy for South Wales.

Mr. Callaghan: Four others.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am very glad to hear that. I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention, although he has no


doubt already seen it in the "Cardiff and Suburban News," a report of the' speech of the general manager of the docks of Cardiff a short time ago. He was speaking of the difficulty of getting the Midlands trade through the South Wales ports. He knows what opportunity there is for taking this traffic in order to increase the South Wales trade. He made this obviously, patently sincere and valuable statement in Cardiff:
I have tried to face this matter in an honest way and, quite frankly, if Midland contacts were successful the truth is the shipping lines are not sailing out of Cardiff.
My hon. Friend knows that at an earlier stage he and I and others were very much concerned that we should not dispense with our control over shipping and if there is any other method by which we can induce the shipping lines into the South Wales ports, I shall be very glad to hear of it. Despite the improvement in the South Wales ports and despite the increased variety in the South Wales ports, I would like to know how these ports compare in their traffic with English ports and I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend can enlighten us on that matter.
With regard to the distribution of trade between the different ports, I cannot give figures to substantiate my statement as time is not available, but my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) must be relieved to know that Swansea has come on enormously in the last 12 months, far more than any other port in South Wales. As far as one can judge, Swansea is "sitting pretty." Newport is "sitting pretty" and Port Talbot is "sitting pretty "—the three of them largely because, and directly because of the efforts of this Government in establishing industries in South Wales. Those living in these three towns need have no fear for the future prosperity of their ports, and they owe that to this Government.
Cardiff and Barry are in a different position. Cardiff has suffered to a certain extent owing to works being carried on in the docks and Barry is awkwardly placed for a number of reasons into which I cannot go now. It is therefore encouraging, and I should like the people of Barry to know this, to find that the percentage increase in the. general cargo through Barry is as high as in

Newport. My hon. Friend has been troubled with the question of the dry dock in Barry. I had hoped to spend some time in referring to that, but I cannot. I have to dry up instead.
I hope that this will not be dealt with on a purely commercial basis. My reason for saying that is that I understand and sympathise with the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. Obviously they have to produce a balance sheet and show that their industry pays. Unfortunately, we are still producing accounts for the socialised industries on a capitalised, narrow, profit-making basis. I wish we could produce accounts which took into consideration not merely the isolated activities of a particular concern in the same way as a private company but which took into consideration and showed in terms of figures, the other elements such as the movement of population, the rehousing, and all those social factors involved which cost must of necessity fall upon the community, but which never figure in the accounts of any private capitalist concern. I hope that my hon. Friend will approach the matter from a Socialist accounting position and not from a mere capitalist one. I should like to say to the Government on behalf of Barry and the ports of South Wales, so far as I am entitled to speak for them, "Thank you, and continue the Socialist policy which you have adopted." It is only by that policy that the ports of South Wales can prosper.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am conscious that it requires no little temerity on the part of one who is not a Welshman to intervene in a discussion which is so much localised to the gallant Principality as the Debate today has been. I am glad that the discussion has taken place in the English language so that I have been able partly to follow it. I remember one occasion, when the Welsh Society in London did me the honour of making me their guest many years ago, when I was Minister of Agriculture and the speeches after dinner were almost entirely in the ancient Cambrian tongue. Even the gentleman who proposed my health made his speech almost entirely in Welsh, interpolating a few words of English here and there for my benefit, much as one throws a bone to a dog.
When my turn came to reply, I addressed the Assembly for the first five minutes in the Gaelic language, and it was rather interesting to observe the expressions of those who were the unwilling recipients of that linguistic freak, because they were courteous men. Those who could speak Welsh thought that I was speaking Welsh very badly but with their native Welsh politeness were unwilling to show this. Others who pretended to speak Welsh and really could not do so, thought that it was excellent Welsh. Afterwards I was able to lapse into the more modern tongue with suitable apologies.
Today I feel that as Gaelic is by far the older tongue—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Welsh is a relatively modern corruption of the ancient Gaelic tongue—if I cannot be accepted by those present as an equal member of the family, perhaps I can offer a few observations in at least an avuncular capacity. Because of some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) I ought to say that in the course of my duties as a Minister and otherwise, I have made frequent visits to Wales and retained the greatest respect and affection for its inhabitants. I remember going to the hon. Member's constituency and talking to the members of the local authority there. Although I am sure there was not one of them who was of my political faith, I was received with courtesy and kindness, which shows that there are some native virtues which even politics cannot impair.
In opening this Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance had his customary fling at the Industrial Revolution and events which took place before either he or I was born, accompanied, as we have all at some time had occasion to lament, by the squalor which sometimes accompanied that great accretion of wealth. But it should also be put on the credit side for our forefathers of those days that what happened then did result in an enormous increase in the population. I suppose that in those times the population of Wales did not exceed half a million, whereas now it is five times that number. Though we may deplore some of those things, I sometimes feel a modest doubt whether if we had been alive in those days, with the amount of knowledge then open to our forefathers, we should have done very much better.

We have therefore to have regard not to the past but to the present of Wales, and to its future.
The right hon. Gentleman was able to give us a relatively cheerful picture. Of course, it is his business to be cheerful on that Bench and he is naturally of a cheerful and hopeful disposition, which makes him an agreeable personality. The only criticism which I have to offer of his picture is that he was inclined, I think, to attribute too much of what he called improvement to the actions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am very loath to disturb the garland of flowers which he placed on his own brow, but I am afraid I must do so in the interests of accuracy.
He said that now the situation in Wales, as in many parts of the country, is that the demand for products exceeds the supply, and that this economic fact is at the bottom, and is the cause, of the lack of unemployment in this country today. There is no getting away from the fact that the full employment which happily exists today is not due to the action of this Government. It is due to no statute which they have passed, but results from economic conditions which were foreseen by the Coalition Reconstruction Committee when framing their policy for employment after the war. It is due to the destruction and to the world lag in production during the war, and the great vacuum which has to be filled. While that is a feature of the general effect over the whole country, it is not due to the political action of any Government at all.
There are other matters which affect the prosperity of Wales and the United Kingdom and which are within the competence and responsibility of the Government. I am sure that every hon. Member, no matter in what part of the House he may sit, has as his main anxiety the future of our standard of living; the process of inflation, as it is called, or a rise in the cost of living; the decline in savings, and other manifestations, such as devaluation. If our money is not on a secure basis, we may be building not on sand, as one hon. Member said tonight, but on a morass. The more we build the deeper we sink. Consequently that is a feature of the Government policy which affects prosperity in Wales, and indeed in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Coming to the items mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I must say that he reminded me a little of a very excellent anthology of verse compiled by that eminent soldier, Lord Wavell. He calls it, "Other Men's Flowers." He is modest enough to say that the pieces of poetry contained in that volume are not his own, but are the composition of other men. In presenting his picture, the right hon. Gentleman was not so modest, but claimed for himself and his colleagues actions which are really other men's flowers. For example, he noted with appreciation which we all share, the remarkable achievements of the steel and tinplate industries in Wales. That is a matter to which the Government have made no contribution whatever, except that of plunging the industry into uncertainty as to its future. The activities of the steel industry in Wales have been due to the foresight of those controlling it and to plans made by the industry at the instance of the Coalition Government during the war for its expansion and development in the future.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has dealt with the coal situation. In the time at my disposal, I do not wish to develop that further. He put before the House certain points of disquietude with regard to the situation in Wales which require considerable thought on the part of us all. The hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Main-waring) drew attention to another aspect of that matter. The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk of pneumoconiosis. I was delighted with what appears in the White Paper and what he said about the improvement in medical technology and diagnosis in dealing with this dread scourge.
I think he might have mentioned, if it was his business to do so—I do not charge him with any offence in not doing so—that the legislation on pneumoconiosis, which extended the Workmen's Compensation Act so as to embrace schemes for compensation for this disease, was introduced into the House of Commons in 1943. I remember the Second Reading of that Act being moved in eloquent terms by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) who usually sits with me on this

Bench. So much for that. I am delighted that the doctors have discovered this better method of diagnosis and I hope that the work will continue. There is no doubt that for the Welsh industrial population, the conquest of this disease would be one of the greatest victories of mankind.
The other point of which much has been made in this Debate is that of the diversity of industries which have been introduced into Wales. The hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) referred to the effect of this diversity upon the traffic of the ports but, of course, it has a wide bearing on the employment position in Wales. It is interesting to me to recollect that the first move in that direction made in this House was under the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, and that that Act was only repealed and its relevant proposals re-enacted by the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. As it was in that year, I ought to tell the House that it received the Royal Assent on 15th June, 1945.
It is under that legislation, produced in a House of Commons with a predominantly Conservative majority throughout all that time, that the machinery was put into being which has proved so beneficial to Wales today. The proof of the pudding is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not found it necessary to add to that legislation. They have been content to rest upon the framework for diversifying the industry of Wales which was the creation of their predecessors.
When we come to agriculture in Wales, which is equally important as, if not in some ways more important than, industry there, two matters have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) made a most admirable speech which commended itself to all quarters of the House. He referred to the benefit which Welsh farmers had gained through the operations of the Milk Marketing Board. I seem to recollect that the Milk Marketing Board was not a creation of this Government but that it came into existence in, I think, 1932 as a consequence of the Act for which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was responsible.
The second element in agricultural prosperity in Wales, which the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned, was the guaranteed prices. I remember very well, as Minister of Food, introducing, or being a party to introducing, that system during the war, and I recollect that the system was worked out before the war as a wartime measure to put agriculture on its feet and to encourage and enlarge our agricultural prosperity and production. These are all improvements on which hon. Gentlemen opposite pride themselves in regard to Wales. It is a garland of other men's flowers. I do not in the least resent it. I am glad that these Measures are bearing fruit, because it is always a satisfaction to one who has laboured in his day and generation to put hon. Gentlemen opposite on the right lines, which is always a very thankless task, to see that in fact the Measures which we introduced in those days are now a source of pride to them.
I have little to add, but I will say one word about the other aspect of this question which has engaged our attention from time to time, and that is the discussion, perfunctory though it has been, on altering the forms of Government in Wales so as better to express the national spirit of Wales. We have our own proposals about that, and we are proposing that there should be a Minister specially charged with observing the repercussions of all Governmental action upon the Principality and with ensuring co-ordination of Measures, so that Wales plays her true part and has a full, fair crack of the whip in anything that is going.
For my own part, I am bound to say—and here I speak as a Scotsman—that the true secret of national spirit and the ideals of a nation owe much less than is commonly supposed to the political forms in which they are clothed. After all, if one considers Wales itself, it has had all sorts of constitutions and all sorts of lack of constitution. She was a nation when she was governed by tribal chiefs, she endured the long disorder of the Wars of the Roses, the autarchy of the Tudors, which she herself foisted upon England, and went through the various stages of Parliamentary evolution and change without, in any way, so far as I can see, losing or modifying her national

culture. In fact, it may be safely assumed that those who care, as I do, for the continued existence of the separate Welsh culture, Welsh language and Welsh contribution may rest fully assured that the matter will only be affected in the very slightest degree by a Council for Wales or any other sort of political organisation.
The heart of Wales, and its message for mankind, rests still in its literature and language, its religion, its song and music, and in its history and tradition, and, so long as these things are maintained, I think that the mere trappings of political forms, whatever they may be, have very little to do with it. It is the hope of all of us in this House that Wales will continue to maintain her identity and her place in the United Kingdom, and that her inhabitants will continue to flourish.

9.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): It is so long since my duties required me to make a speech in this House that I feel almost compelled to ask for the indulgence of hon. Members, but as I cannot promise to be non-controversial I think I had better take my chance. I hope I never shall be non-controversial because, as I understand it, democracy flourishes on controversy and not on agreement.
The usual technique of the Opposition is to deny that there is anything good about this country today; in so far as its state can be seen, it is bad, and it is all the fault of the Government. This afternoon we have seen a refinement of that technique. The facts are so clearly against the Opposition that they are compelled to admit that there is a marked contrast between the position in Wales today and the position which existed when they were responsible for it, and so now we have them gathering other men's flowers. They are the people who are going to take the credit for what is right in Wales since the war, and we are to be responsible for all the things not yet put right. I do not think that the people of Wales are going to be deceived by that refinement of technique any more than they were by the earlier aspects of Tory policy.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Tory Party's plans for a Minister of co-ordination. We had a Tory Minister for Wales before the war. He was the Minister of Labour, and he administered the dole queue. That was our Minister then. In so far as we want a Minister for co-ordination of Welsh Affairs today—and the Conservative Party have had experience of this sort of thing before—let me remind them of the most recent example. In 1936 they appointed a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. He operated for three years and when the real test came in 1940, as to whether the functions of his office were effective or not, they quietly wrapped up his Ministry in red tape and sent him into the House of Lords, and his functions were taken over by somebody who had executive responsibility for what he was doing.
I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman said about political trappings affecting the culture of a people. I have lived in Wales, although I cannot claim to be a Welshman. However, I should like to come back to that later. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party made some reference to the fact that I was winding up this Debate. I would point out to him—and I make no complaint—that the Government were, in fact, prepared to have a Debate divided into two sections, one on economic affairs and one on agricultural affairs. Had that proposition been acceptable, different arrangements could no doubt have been made, but, in point of fact, hon. Members took the decision—as they were entitled to do—that they preferred to raise individual points, and it therefore falls upon me to reply as best I can to the points that have been made.

Mr. C. Davies: This is the first that I have heard of this. I do not know who objected to the very reasonable suggestion of dividing the Debate into two parts, because that would have covered both rural and economic affairs.

Mr. Callaghan: I would prefer to leave the matter there so that I may get on with my speech. The hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White), the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) all raised the question of the hydro-electric scheme. I do not dissent

from anything they said. It seemed to me that the proposition which they were making was a perfectly reasonable one. We have to ensure that the economic development of Wales does not proceed at the expense of spoiling the countryside. I know that part of Wales very well indeed, as the noble Lady knows, and I certainly think that some of the features that characterise parts of Snow-donia today are not very good monuments to those who built before us, and it is not right that we should perpetuate them. Therefore, I think that the British Electricity Authority have been very wise in proceeding on the basis of informing public opinion about their proposals before taking final decisions.
It is said quite clearly in paragraph 61 of the White Paper that notice has been taken of this matter. The actual words are:
They have not yet reached a final decision as to what is practicable and economic although it was thought desirable that publicity should be given to the possible scale of development.
That seems to be a very sensible and businesslike way of going about this project. I understand that Members who are interested in it are to get further details. It is clear that the British Electricity Authority will have to come to this House with a Private Bill before they can get sanction to proceed with their work. In that way it will be possible for those who wish to put points to do so. I am sure that the B.E.A. desire that public opinion should be consulted and the best possible arrangements made to combine economic development with the preservation of one of the most beautiful spots in the British Isles.
I want to turn to the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for East Swansea (Mr. Mort) and West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris), about redundancy in the tinplate trade. I am told that it is not possible to say how soon redundancy in this trade consequential upon the completion of Margam will arise; it will depend on how the world level of demand for tinplate is maintained. I agree that it would be a grave reflection on the Government if we allowed this redundancy to creep upon us, however long it may take to develop, without making plans to deal with it.
Of course, that immediately gets us into the field of economic planning. It is no


use expecting that the laws of supply and demand and private enterprise will cope with such a situation in South Wales. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) was absolutely right when he said that the people of South Wales appreciate that it is only through a planned economic system, which Members on this side adhere to, that there can be material prosperity in Wales.
I turn to the question of the Council for Wales. The noble Lady the Member for Anglesey said it had been in existence for some time, but that she had not yet seen any evidence of its work. The noble Lady has a nice garden—it is a delightful place, as I know—but I am sure she does not pull up the newly-planted flowers in it every two weeks, to see how they are getting on.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The council was set up 10 months ago.

Mr. Callaghan: With great respect, it is not 10 months; it was set up on 20th May. One of the questions which it is suggested the council should deal with, and which was mentioned by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) and others, is the drift from the land. This is something which has been going on in Wales—and certainly in Scotland—for many years. Does the noble Lady really suggest that she expects to see a solution of this problem, all neatly tied up, in six months? Because, if so, her political realism has escaped her for the moment.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of one thing which the council has done during the last eight or nine months?

Mr. Callaghan: I suggest that the noble Lady waits for the first 12 months' activity. Let us see what comes from it. If I may say so, on behalf of the Government, I am prepared to let the council be judged by results. Let us see whether they make any information available to the Government on which we can act. If it can do that, then the council will have been completely justified. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) asked if the council could deal with afforestation. There is nothing in this field which is

outside the purview of the council if it desires to study it. I cannot put matters on its agenda. It is for the council to decide the order of its business, as we think it should.
I should like to say one word in reply to the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). He raised three questions, one about a young man in forestry, one about a hospital and another about the heating of a building. All of them contained dangerous implications. He should be aware of the danger of reading a letter of this sort in the House of Commons if he has not substantiated his facts. He has done it before, and I should like to ask him whether he has raised these matters with the Ministers responsible and if so, what reply he has had.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Before I read this letter in the House I took steps in so far as I could to discover the genuineness of the writer. I challenge any reply that will in any way undermine the contents of that letter. I gave it as an illustration of the bias which is being shown by certain officials in Wales against the Welsh language.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman's reply seems to me to be quite unsatisfactory. I asked him a direct question. Has he sent these details to the Ministers who are responsible for these matters, because he has implied—I will go no further—that in the case of the heating for the particular building to which he referred the electricity authority are deliberately avoiding doing the job that is required, because another firm's tender was for a lower figure than they can quote.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to reply to that. What I said—and I repeat it—is that the electricity authority for Merseyside and North Wales were asked whether they would supply heat in a building already fitted for electric light. They quoted for the work. Another tender was received for the work which was infinitely less than the tender of this public authority. My point, which I think is a good arguable one, is why this authority submitted any tender at all if it was not in a position to supply the electricity.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman told us that on the first occasion. What


he should have done, and what he ought to do now, is to let the Minister see the facts that he has made known to the House. It is a customary practice in this House for hon. Members who are going to raise matters of this sort to indicate beforehand either that they propose to do so, or to deal with the matter by correspondence with the Minister until they get the facts right. If they are then dissatisfied, they can raise the matter. The hon. Gentleman has used this technique before, and on the last occasion he did it he had to withdraw the allegations that he made.
I should like to say a word about the afforestation question, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor. He told us that 14,000 sheep were grazing on land in Llandovery, and they would have to go when afforestation came about. I understand the facts are these—that in 20 years' time 16 farmers will have been dispossessed. In 40 years' time 40 farmers will have been dispossessed. In 20 years the number of sheep in this area, which now stands at 14,000, will probably be reduced to 7,000. I am sure my hon. Friend knows better than I do what the sheep population of Wales is. A tremendous beneficial effect will result from planting the trees in this area of Wales, which is largely barren today. It is also bound to have a very valuable effect on the economy of the surrounding area, because it will increase the number of employed and the number of people who will be living there far above what it is today.

Mr. Cove: It will be more valuable than the sheep.

Mr. Callaghan: I should now like to spend a short time on the question of the ports, which was raised by the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs, my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), who has served the people of South Wales and their dockers very well during the last five years. My hon. and learned Friend divided correctly this trade in the ports of South Wales into two parts. The first part was coal exports and the second part was general cargo. They are two distinct and separ-

ate problems. Those who look at the tonnages passing through South Wales and lump them both together, and then say how much worse the position is in 1949 than it was in 1939 are not distinguishing the essential facts which my hon. and learned Friend put in front of us.
As my hon. and learned Friend showed, the real point about South Wales ports is that coal exports have substantially declined since 1938. He went on to say that no one in 1945 expected export of coal through the South Wales ports for five years, and that was what we were working on at that time. As a matter of fact, coal exports, up to 6th November this year, are more than seven million tons, a remarkable recovery. This, incidentally, is equivalent to the total export for 1948, with rather less than two months to go.
As regards the general cargo position, imports are substantially higher today than in 1938, being 25 per cent. up. Exports through the South Wales ports are also up on 1938 to the extent of nearly 30 per cent. Those are substantial figures when we recall that the imports into this country are coming in at a lower level than in 1938. My hon. and gallant Friend drew the correct conclusion when he said that this remarkable increase in the trade passing through South Wales ports was due to Government encouragement and, to some extent, to Government diversion of traffics.
I should like to say a word to the right hon. Gentleman who is representing the Conservative Party. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) came down to South Wales and told us there, at one of those mammoth jamborees the Tories have, that the Tory Party was opposed to bulk buying in principle and desired to bring it to an end. He certainly said it in the right place because if there is one port in the country, or one system of ports, which has benefited from bulk buying, it is those in South Wales. It is only because the Minister of Food gave an assurance to the people of South Wales that the food which was intended for distribution in the hinterland of South Wales should pass through South Wales ports that many of the food ships have been going there at all.
I would say to the dockers of South Wales that if they want less work, let them support the party that believes in abolishing bulk buying. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's view, I am very glad that it has been made clear.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Surely he does not deny that before the war there was an immense importation of food into the Bristol Channel?

Mr. Callaghan: Ah, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman says, "the Bristol Channel." It is well known that Bristol, which is not in South Wales, is essentially an importing and not an exporting port and is essentially a port to which a great many cargoes of food have come for many years. I am talking about South Wales, and I have said that general cargo imports are 25 per cent. up on 1938. I will leave that point, because I have so many other good points on which to hang the. party opposite.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: From where have those diverted cargoes come? What ports have suffered?

Mr. Callaghan: I am really not going to be drawn into that question. It is sufficient that we can keep the economy of the South Wales ports moving by Government planning. In fact, this is precisely what has happened since the end of the war. The people of South Wales realise and understand that fact.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Do I understand that the Government have—

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot give way to an hon. Member who has not been here during the Debate but who came in after dinner.
The other point in regard to the difference between general cargo and coal is that, although the figures for coal exports are normally substantially higher in terms of tonnages than general cargo, the amount of work per ton of cargo is much greater in the case of general cargo than in the case of coal. I have here a typical example from the port of Swansea. In Swansea this year the number of dockers employed on the coal trade has been 63, but the number employed on general cargo has been 527. The last thing I want to imply is that I believe that the exports

of coal from South Wales ports are a small thing; they are not. We want to see them put up because they have an important indirect effect on the ports of South Wales. Those in South Wales who are constantly complaining must not over estimate the effect which the movement of a huge tonnage of coal has on the employment situation of the dockers.
These figures may be of interest to the House. The weekly gross earnings of dockers in all ports of the United Kingdom is £8 6s. and in South Wales the figure is £8 14s. I must qualify that to give a completely fair picture. The figure for South Wales is larger than that for the rest of the country partly because in one port there are exceptionally high earnings in relation to iron ore imports and secondly, because shift working is employed in some South Wales ports in a way which it is not in other parts of the country. Even if allowance is made for both factors, the House will agree that the dismal picture which has been painted by some people with vested and political interests in this matter is not borne out by the facts.
The ports of South Wales give an excellent turn-round. Hon. Members will know that I have visited every one of the South Wales ports, and down there I have found an excellent spirit. Any shipowner who goes there can be assured of a quick turn-round and a very quick discharge indeed. They are first-rate ports which ought to be used much more than they have been in the past. The rates which are charged are negotiated as a commercial matter between the exporter and the shipowner. The Government do not come into the transaction. The point at which the exporter leaves off paying and the shipowner takes on the payment is clearly a commercial matter.
As to railway rates, the British Transport Commission are very vitally affected. I am able to say that at a recent interview with the shipping and dock interests in South Wales, the Railway Executive gave an assurance that they were fully prepared to review any individual railway rates to which the other interests cared to call attention if there appeared to be a disparity between ports, with due regard to mileage. The results of such an investigation would have to depend on the facts disclosed, but, broadly speaking, a general review of these rates will be made.


Under Section 76 of the Transport Act the Commission are charged with the responsibility of going to the Transport Tribunal, after an examination of all the rates which exist, with proposals to adjust them if they are wrong.
Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will therefore understand the amusement with which I read in the Conservative policy for Wales and Monmouth that Conservative proposals for reorganising nationalised transport would provide machinery for the impartial review of rates and charges so far as the present structure of the South Wales ports was concerned. That is two years out of date. The Conservatives voted against Section 76 of the Transport Act. This review is already being undertaken. I am much obliged to the party opposite to know that at least we have their support in that matter.
I want to deal with one or two other matters in relation to the ports. One of the other proposals of the Labour Party's programme is to nationalise the cold stores. That, as far as South Wales is concerned, will put an end to the position by which the public interest has been subordinated to private profit, because one of the most efficient, cold stores in Great Britain today has been left half empty on account of a pledge given to the private interests who owned cold stores by Lord Woolton during the time when he was Minister of Food during the war that Government-owned cold stores would not be operated in opposition to them. These facts have been disclosed and are on record.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt forgive me for interrupting, but he is suddenly producing charges of a serious character without giving any notice of the matter and thereby enabling them to be refuted. This is a pledge of which I have heard for the first time tonight. I hope that the hon. Member will give us the references he has, so that the matter can be looked into?

Mr. Callaghan: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to his right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). who is chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He will be able to give him the full references because the matter has been disclosed there.
Now, as I undertook to do, I will say a word about agriculture in Wales. Essentially the basic character of Welsh farming is crops and grass, and it is upon those that Welsh agriculture must continue to be based. Several hon. Gentlemen have referred to the fact that Welsh farmers sell milk. Indeed, they do. It was the monthly milk cheque which stood between many of them and bankruptcy in the years between the wars. Consumption has increased. We have practically achieved our target for increased milk in Wales.
One hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that it was going to England. It is also coming to the industrial towns of South Wales. In Cardiff today the consumption of milk is nearly double what it was before the war. That is because our people are at work. The hon. Gentleman must recognise the interaction between the rural areas and the industrial economy. It is precisely because we have full employment in South Wales that the Government can offer fixed prices and guaranteed markets to the farmers of Wales. If we are to continue along the lines which are revitalising Welsh agriculture today, we have to continue with full employment. So let it be clearly understood that the prosperity of one is bound up with the wellbeing of the other.
The amenities of many Welsh farms are poor. They were, and still are, but we are progressing. Many Acts have gone on to the Statute Book since the right hon. Gentleman left office and are now being fulfilled. I will quote two or three figures. The first is in relation to the backwardness in supplies of piped water. Some 5,800 new farm schemes have been approved costing £940,000; 30,000 farm drainage schemes are being carried out with Government assistance of £500,000. Drainage authorities have been helped to the extent of £110,000. Since 1945—let us be quite clear about that.
As far as the Hill Farming Act is concerned—which again is an enactment of this Government—there are 500 cases today in which authorisation to go ahead with work in advance of approval has been given and proposals have been received involving the expenditure of £1,500,000. These are formidable figures.

Mr. Price-White: Is it not a fact that all the developments to which the hon. Gentleman is referring come under the 1945 Act?

Mr. Callaghan: I am referring to the Hill Farming Act of 1946.

Mr. Price-White: rose —

Mr. Callaghan: Let me give one other illustration. If ever anything in the rural areas lagged behind in Wales in the inter-war years it was water supply and sewerage. Under the stimulus of this Government there has been remarkable activity on the part of local authorities. I want to give two figures by way of contrast. In the 20 years between the wars the total loans to local authorities for water supply and sewerage amounted to less than £9 million. In the four years since the war the total grant-aided schemes amount to £13 million.

Mr. Price-White: Under what Act?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman can have the benefit of all the legislation. We take pride in administering it and putting it into practice. Local authorities are undertaking a very great burden on the rates in connection with these schemes. They are doing so because there is today in Welsh agriculture a solid confidence in the future, a confidence that is based upon the administration of the present Government, because they have nothing from the past upon which to look back with any pride or joy as far as Welsh farming is concerned.
The pattern of Welsh life has been touched upon and it has been said that Governments can destroy a people's culture; they can break up a people's life. If they destroy their livelihood, that is the easiest and best way of breaking up their culture. One of the reasons for the drift which took place from rural Wales between the wars was that the livelihood of the people had disappeared. Let there be no mistake about that. My right hon. Friend referred to the atmosphere of hopelessness and despair which existed in those years. That sense of stagnation has now changed, both in rural and in industrial Wales. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) smiles, but within 20 miles of my constituency are three of the biggest industrial schemes now being

undertaken in Europe; these are at Nantgarw, Margam and Mamhilad.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Only three?

Mr. Callaghan: These three tremendous projects are restoring and revitalising the life of the people of Wales. The numbers of young men and women in the universities is as my right hon. Friend said, increasing, and greater opportunities for them are opening up. Those are the factors which will put the people of Wales in a position in which they can build their own culture.
This, I think, is the first time when I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. I say that Governments can destroy a culture, and I agree with the right hon. Member that Governments cannot build it up. A Government can supply the material conditions in which a people's spirit can flourish and its culture can flower. What we are seeing in Wales today as the result of the conditions which have been created by this Government is a new flowering of the Welsh spirit. It is exemplified in the performances of the National Eisteddfod and in the International Eisteddfod at Llangollen. I claim on behalf of the Government that we have created conditions which will enable the people of Wales to blossom in their spirit and to come to full flower. Those of us who know and love the Welsh people know those things of which they are capable when they are given the opportunity.

Mr. Snow (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WAYS AND MEANS

[22nd November]

ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS)

Resolution reported:

"That it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the Treasury, during the five years ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, to issue out of the Consolidated Fund sums not exceeding in the aggregate forty million pounds, to be applied as appropriations in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for those years for the provision of approved housing accommodation in Great Britain for married persons serving in, or employed in


connection with, the armed forces of the Crown, being accommodation the cost of the provision of which would otherwise fall to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament for the defence services:

Provided that the amount so issued for any year to defray Navy, Army or Air Force expenditure in respect of the provision of approved housing accommodation in Great Britain for persons serving in, or employed in connection with, the Royal Navy or Royal Marines, the Army or the Air Force, as the case may be, shall not at any date exceed the aggregate of the amounts proposed to be so issued to defray that expenditure by the estimates upon which this House has, before that date, resolved to grant sums to His Majesty to defray that expenditure for that year;

(b) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing sums (or any part of sums) to be issued as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, or of providing for the replacement of all or any part of sums so issued, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, and to provide that any securities created and issued accordingly shall be deemed for all purposes to have been created and issued under that Act;

(c) to provide for the repayment to the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the defence services, of the sums issued as aforesaid, together with interest thereon;

(d) to provide for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer under the last foregoing paragraph and the application of sums so issued

in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.

For the purpose of this Resolution the expression 'approved' means approved by the Treasury, and the expression ' the defence services' means the Navy, Army and Air services."

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Glenvil Hall, and Mr. Walter Edwards.

ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL

"to provide money for the provision of housing accommodation in Great Britain for married persons serving in or employed in connection with the Armed Forces of the Crown and for other purposes connected therewith"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill No. 208.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'Clock.